The muddled reasoning of Bostock : Bonkers Bostock

Here are two questions:

Are you a man or a woman?

Are you heterosexual or homosexual?

Are these one and the same question?

Of course not.

To demonstrate that, we have four separate categories:

Male heterosexuals, female heterosexuals, male homosexuals, and female homosexuals.

There are numerous people in each category, 

showing that the two properties, sex and sexual orientation, are independent of each other.

In fact, there is little correlation between the two properties.

What this proves is that sex is different from sexual orientation.

(Something that should have been obvious.)

So now let us be clear:

in its ruling on the Bostock case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County

the Supreme Court couldn't make that distinction.

The court sadly fell for the sophistical arguments of the left.

The Bostock case was clearly wrongly decided, and the court's decision should be overturned.

That may be a bridge too far, but at the least it would be desirable if future rulings avoided using Bostock as a controlling precedent.

-------

Further comment:

Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority (6-3) opinion 

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender 

fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex."

That sentence makes a distinction between "traits or actions" and sex.

True, sex is involved in the definitions of homosexuality and heterosexuality.

But just because something IS INVOLVED IN a definition that doesn't mean it IS the definition.

The question is:

How many Supreme Court justices are capable of making that distinction?

Gorsuch wrote also in the majority opinion that it is

“impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender 

without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/13/us/supreme-court-trans-athletes

That is nonsense.

Of course the two mooted discriminations are distinguishable.

See the discussion above.

------

Searching the web for 

muddled reasoning of Bostock 

yielded this AI-generated statement:

"The argument is that 

while an employer has to know an employee's sex to know if they are gay or transgender ..."

If that was a part of their argument, that part is a glaring falsehood.

There are both male and female homosexuals:

likewise transgenders divide into those who, in one description, were "born male or female."

Ergo, sex and, either sexual or gender orientation, are quite independent properties.