but when it comes to the law, if there’s hope to make the argument that LGBTQ people shouldn’t be discriminated against for who they are, then we have to hope that courts see “sex” and “gender” as synonyms
What you should know about that really nasty anti-trans bill in Congress.
Parker Molloy

Actually, that’s not the issue or the reasoning behind Price Waterhouse and its progeny of cases protecting LGBT people against discrimination. Title VII and similar laws ban discrimination “based on” or “because of” sex. Gender, including the stereotypes we have about what me and women should look and act like, is related to, or a characteristic of, sex. Therefore, when you discriminate based on or because of a person’s gender, you have necessarily also discriminated against them based on or because of their sex.

In any case, I have substantial doubts whether this bill would do what the sponsors intend, and we fear, even it does become law. That’s because the protections for LGBTQ people under existing sex discrimination laws are NOT based on declaring us a protected class, but instead on the recognition that everyone has a sex and a gender, and discrimination based a failure to conform to sex or gender stereotypes us necessarily discrimination based in or because of sex. The protected class language is really only applicable to equal protection claims u set the constitution. It is used in Title VII and similar claims merely as shorthand for the more convoluted sex stereotyping analysis I described above.