The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay employees from discrimination. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. The ruling suggests that sexual attraction is covered under “sex” within the statute.

“A woman who is subject to an adverse employment action because she is attracted to women would have been treated differently if she had been a man who was attracted to women,” the court’s majority opinion stated. “We can therefore conclude that sexual orientation is a function of sex and, by extension, sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination,” the opinion added.

LGBT media is celebrating the ruling as a major victory the LGBT community, although the decision only covers Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. Vox writes:

“The decision has national implications. Currently, most states and the federal government do not explicitly prohibit anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. But if the courts agree that the Civil Rights Act already bans anti-gay discrimination, they could change the national landscape once and for all. … Someone can be fired from a job, evicted from a home, or kicked out of a business just because an employer, landlord, or business owner doesn’t approve of the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The LGBT advocates here appear to have painted themselves into a corner with this newest decision. If taken as the judge argues, the decision stating that a woman attracted to another woman would experience different treatment than if she were a man attracted to women, functions as an argument against transgender ideology.

The decision rests on a firm and universal understanding of both “woman” and “man” in order to interchange them within the scenario. It also assumes employers are cis-gendered, heterosexuals. The argument is that her sex is determining the discrimination. But logically, if gender is fluid, one can be non-binary, both genders simultaneously or if a person transitions to the other gender, these conditions radically change.

If the woman were a man, the argument assumes, she would face no discrimination. But what if she is transgender and identifies as a man? The argument requires a belief that the employer would be comfortable with her identifying as a man and dating a woman, but uncomfortable with her being a woman and dating another woman due to anti-gay bias. In truth, the transgender position is that she was always a man, or perhaps a man with a vagina. Her sexual orientation changes depending on her gender identity. If the woman is bisexual, then she is safe dating a man, but unsafe dating a woman in this scenario.

But her sex does not change. The situation is rather absurd. But that is the point. The ruling relies on an extreme hypothetical that only complicates matters when discussed in detail.

Innate sexual orientation eligible for federal protection as a class of person requires a firm definition of sex. Gender identity theory creates a paradox as a person cannot be born attracted to one gender if that gender is subjective. Transgender and gender identity theory override sexual orientation theory and this ruling, very firmly, affirms sexual orientation theory. It is unclear, if made national, how it will interfere with the growing demand for gender identity inclusion. LGBT advocacy and this particular court are trying far too hard to force reasoning where it simply does not fit in order to achieve a policy goal that is both unnecessary and introduces new legal conflicts.

Despite continuous demands from the Left that, as stated above, LGBT individuals could be discriminated against in a variety of situations, there is very little evidence LGBT people currently are being discriminated against by employers. Lambda Legal, the first legal organization dedicated to assisting gays and lesbians in court, currently has six open cases involving employment discrimination, with only one alleging anti-gay discrimination.

The case in question, Frost v. Hesperia Unified School District in California, involves a lesbian teacher who claims to have experienced continuous anti-LGBT hostility from her superiors. Her claim ranges from her principle once asking her if she had a partner to which she felt he displayed “discomfort with her sexual orientation,” to once overhearing another teacher comment that she didn’t “look like” a lesbian.

The complaint argues that the school also discriminated against the Gay Straight Alliance to which she assisted and eventually decided not to renew her contract as a teacher. Her concerns include the school not announcing the club’s activities over the intercom to overhearing students saying, “That’s so gay.” She alleges she was once told by her principle he believed she was “teaching homosexuality” or “something to that affect,” but provides no documentation.

Overall the legal organization lists 38 cases of employment discrimination going back to the early 1990’s, but roughly 8 of them directly claim employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender identity. Assuming the current open case, with the last documented decision to strike much of the complaint in 2015, was completely true, by its nature it is a remarkable outlier.

As The Human Rights Committee reports on its website, 89 percent of Fortune 500 companies self-regulate against anti-LGBT discrimination. Despite 1 in 4 LGBT Americans reporting experiencing discrimination in 2016, there appears to be no legal action, evidence or substance to the claims. In fact, the study citing this number uses as one of its core examples a man who believed he was being unfairly left out of golfing invitations because he was gay, which he believed were necessary for career advancement.

There is simply no solid evidence to believe LGBT discrimination is an issue requiring state or Federal intervention or protection. Nevertheless, LGBT activists persist in their efforts to be included in anti-discrimination efforts. A primary reason I oppose much of the political agenda of the LGBT Left is due to the fact I do not want my rights and freedoms, or my very identity, determined by the federal government, of which I have very little influence. In this case, my status as a gay man is up for debate based on the changing political needs of the LGBT movement.

This ruling has the potential to open up a great deal of legal conflict and in its effort to force protections may create legal inequality in the process. It is also the beginning of a wave of demands for existing law to conform to ever-changing attitudes and views of sex, sexuality and gender identity. Despite the narrative, there is no purpose or positive benefit to enforcing this type of protection in the first place and it creates opportunities for abuses. It could lead to inadvertent discrimination against gender identity or sexual orientation depending on the circumstance.

It should be clear that this kind of legal manipulation by the courts as opposed to the voice of the people within a given state causes more problems than it solves. However, it seems equally as clear that the voice of people has already been spoken within the anti-discrimination policies of the majority of American corporations. We truly do not need anymore anti-discrimination laws and the more we attempt to fit in every conceivable identity or social option, the more absurd our legal system will become in practice.