In Favor of the 2019 Equality Act: A Comment on Burt

• Author: Susan Gluck Mezey
• DOI: 10.1177/1557085121991336
• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Date: 01 October 2021
• Subject Matter: Comments

2021, Vol. 16(4) 526 –531

https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085121991336

Feminist Criminology

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1557085121991336

journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

Comment

In Favor of the 2019 Equality

Act: A Comment on Burt

Susan Gluck Mezey1

Abstract

There are three reason why I disagree with the author’s premise that 2019 Equality

Act disadvantages women by blurring the distinction between sex and gender identity.

First, it ignores current legal theory and practice that sex discrimination encompasses

gender identity discrimination in federal law; second, it has not made a sufficient case

that the Act’s interpretation of sex would harm women; third, it incorrectly assumes

gender equality in the workplace can be achieved while sex-segregated spaces remain

segregated by biological sex. In sum, revising the Equality Act to exempt women’s

spaces would sacrifice the principle of gender equality upon which the Act is based.

Keywords

Equality Act, LGBT, gender identity, sexual orientation, women’s rights, discrimination

Let me begin by briefly outlining the reasons why I disagree with Professor’s Burt’s

(2020) rationale for reformulating the 2019 Equality Act. First, her opposition to the

current version of the Act stems from her belief that merging sex with gender identity

encroaches on women’s rights. This argument is almost entirely outside the realm of

current legal theory and practice in the United States. It ignores the fact that the LGBT

community and its allies (men and women, gay and straight, transgender and cisgen-

der) had long fought for an interpretation of sex discrimination that encompasses dis-

crimination on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex stereotypes and

that the Act establishes that they succeeded in persuading the courts and the Obama

administration to accept this broad definition of sex discrimination.

Second, I believe she has not made a sufficient case for her claim that the Equality

Act would harm women. Emphasizing that she does not want to suggest that transgen-

der women (individuals who identify as women and were assigned to the male gender

1Loyola University Chicago, IL USA

Corresponding Author:

Susan Gluck Mezey, Loyola University Chicago, 1032 W. Sheridan, Chicago, IL, 60660 USA.

Email: smezey@luc.edu

991336

FCXXXX10.1177/1557085121991336Feminist CriminologyMezey

research-article

2021