What is that crap about "sexual orientation" and “gender identity”?  Probably what libs, secular progressives, the far-left, socialists, and dems meant to say is "sexual preference", or perhaps “sexual whatever”.

EO/EEO protects individuals from discrimination or abuses due to Age, Gender, Creed/Religion, Partisan Political Affiliation, National Origin, Race, Ethnicity, Marital Status, Handicap (Mental or Physical Disability), and Sexual Harassment.  These (except for sexual harassment) are immutable traits.

Some definitions about preferences.

·         Immutable means inability to be change without exception.
·         A heterosexual is one with a sexual preference for one's opposite sex.
·         A homosexual is one with a sexual preference for one's same sex.
·         A pedophiliac is one with an abnormal sexual preference for children.
·         A necrophiliac is one with [a weird] sexual preference for corpses.
·         A hemophiliac is one with abnormal bleeding control tendency or ability.  Oops ... not related with sex.

Some Suffixes.

·         -philiac – is a suffix meaning [wrong, bad, or negative] tendency or attraction toward something.
·         -phile – is a suffix meaning fondest, loving or attraction toward something.  Examples: Audiophile, Francophile.
·         -philic – is a suffix meaning sick or ill tendency or attraction toward something.

Now, let’s go back to the crap.  How in the world can you include a Civil Right for “gender identity” and/or “sexual preference, attraction, orientation or sexual tendency”?

What is a gender identity?  I thought genders where masculine and feminine in languages or male and female in natural sciences.  I know that a hermaphrodite is one having both male and female sexual organs; and I also know that an androgynous thing is a thing’s characteristic is neither male nor female.  For example there certain names that can be given to both a male or female person such as “Dana”.  In the Army, I knew a male sergeant that hated his first name it was Dana.  I used to have a female co-worker at a Navy Contractor named Dana.  Therefore, Dana is an androgynous name.

This begs the question, is there an androgynous gender identity?  Do we need to define one capriciously?

Equal Opportunity is a broader equality concept because it can be applied to any opportunity for advancement humans may compete in life.  That is probably why late President J.F. Kennedy signed the Affirmative Action executive order almost half a century ago.  In essence, all of the discrimination issues about sex are already included in Gender, Sexual Harassment and to some extent in Marital Status (i.e., single, married, divorced, widowed and separated).

Necessity and Immutability Questions.
Is there a need to define a gender “condition” as ambivalent, neuter, indeterminate, or unknown?  Is the condition physically, psychologically, mentally, genetically identifiable?  Is the prospective “gender identity” an immutable trait deserving to be included among the other immutable traits already in our laws?

English Liberalism.
Do we need to change the words definitions in the American English Language?  No wonder we have so many problems with English.  Other Languages such as Spanish have an academy of language doctors and scholars named Real Academia Española (Spanish Royal Academy) with representative members from all countries where Spanish is used including believe it or not the USA. L'Académie française is the equivalence to the Spanish Royal Academy in France.  In the US, for example, our higher education centers are the ones who capriciously decide what meanings to give to the American English Language words.  There is a huge difference in the dictionaries of 50 years ago, 25 years ago, and 5 years ago.  Do your own research and check how the definitions for sex, gender and marriage have changed in the last 50 years.  If we just had a Royal Academy of the English Language, then we wouldn’t have the present definitions chaos, but we don’t.  We are doomed in this respect.

The Bottom Line.
It will be a big mistake to change the US Code and/or our Constitution to include “gender identity”, sexual attractions, preferences, tendencies, or orientations.  Imagine including “sexual whatever” as a category you cannot discriminate against.  You will have to include not just the heterosexuals, but also the homosexuals, the pedophiliacs, necrophiliacs, and other deviant sexual preferences, tendencies, orientations and attractions.