This may not be the slam dunk you think it is. To the best of my understanding, the current coverage under title vii for gender and sexuality has only been extended so far as "would this behaviour be unacceptable for the opposite sex?"
Florida could argue (within the scope of existing supreme Court decisions) that the use of certain "new" titles are never acceptable, regardless of the person's sex.
As written, the rule is illegal, but it could possibly be upheld in the context of this specific case.
They would have to argue that sex and gender are not the same thing in court, under oath. It's been a longstanding argument for the GOP that they are the same. And if they argue biological sex and gender are not 1:1, then they're acknowledging that a different gender identity than one's birth sex is possible, and setting that precedent immediately takes the wind out of a lot of their arguments on transgender folk.
They'll be happy to say one thing in public and argue another in court. For example, when Fox News argued that a reasonable person is not expected to believe anything Tucker Carlson is saying.
This may not be the slam dunk you think it is. To the best of my understanding, the current coverage under title vii for gender and sexuality has only been extended so far as "would this behaviour be unacceptable for the opposite sex?"
Florida could argue (within the scope of existing supreme Court decisions) that the use of certain "new" titles are never acceptable, regardless of the person's sex.
As written, the rule is illegal, but it could possibly be upheld in the context of this specific case.
They would have to argue that sex and gender are not the same thing in court, under oath. It's been a longstanding argument for the GOP that they are the same. And if they argue biological sex and gender are not 1:1, then they're acknowledging that a different gender identity than one's birth sex is possible, and setting that precedent immediately takes the wind out of a lot of their arguments on transgender folk.
They'll be happy to say one thing in public and argue another in court. For example, when Fox News argued that a reasonable person is not expected to believe anything Tucker Carlson is saying.
Yeah, that's why I said "should".