In the last few decades, US Supreme Court rulings have made strides for the advancement of the LGBT community. However, this community has yet to enjoy equality in the workplace due to its exclusion from Title VII protection. This article details the recent conflict between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice in interpreting Title VII and how this conflict may make it difficult for the Supreme Court to reach a broad ruling concerning sex discrimination under Title VII. The EEOC relies on Supreme Court precedent concerning sex stereotyping to extend Title VII protection to sexual orientation while the Justice Department employs a textualist argument to support a narrow interpretation of sex. However, changing societal norms and advancing neuroscientific research support the conclusion that sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression is included under “sex” even when using textualism to interpret Title VII. Given that the Supreme Court is unlikely to defer to the EEOC’s interpretation, these arguments stemming from the social sciences may provide the support the Court needs to justify a decision to end employment discrimination against the LGBT community and gender nonconformists in a way that is consistent with the positions of both the EEOC and the Justice Department.

中文翻译：

---

在司法部和平等就业机会委员会之间的冲突中定义基于性别的歧视

在过去的几十年里，美国最高法院的裁决在促进 LGBT 社区的进步方面取得了长足的进步。然而，该社区尚未享受工作场所的平等，因为它被排除在第七章的保护之外。本文详细介绍了平等就业机会委员会 (EEOC) 和司法部最近在解释第七章时发生的冲突，以及这种冲突如何使最高法院难以就第七章下的性别歧视做出广泛裁决。EEOC 依靠最高法院关于性别刻板印象的先例将第七章的保护扩展到性取向，而司法部则采用文本主义的论点来支持对性的狭义解释。然而，不断变化的社会规范和推进神经科学研究支持这样的结论，即即使在使用文本主义来解释第七章时，性取向、性别认同和表达也包含在“性”之下。鉴于最高法院不太可能遵循 EEOC 的解释，这些源自社会科学的论点可能会提供法院所需的支持，以证明终止对 LGBT 社区和性别不墨守成规者的就业歧视的决定是合理的EEOC 和司法部的立场。