On Friday, the House passed the Equality Act, which ostensibly outlaws "discrimination" based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Every Democrat voted in favor of the radical, ant-science bill. It will certainly now die in the Senate, but its approval in the House is relevant and worth considering. If Democrats ever again control both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, this dystopian piece of legislation will be one of the first items on their increasingly weird agenda.
Note that the bill, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically protects gender identity. Discrimination based simply on gender is already illegal. But gender identity is, rather than your actual gender, the gender you imagine yourself to be. In other words, with this law, Democrats hope to protect a person's imaginary gender. If a man says he is a woman, he is entitled to be treated like one. Which is exactly like decreeing that if a man thinks the moon is made of marshmallows, he is entitled to have that belief enthusiastically affirmed by every NASA engineer he comes across.
Under the Equality Act, a biological man would be granted the constitutional right to enter any women's restroom or locker room in any school or business. He would also be given access to all woman's sports team, no questions asked. No need for hormones, "sex change" surgery, or even a wig. A man that says he is a woman, is a woman. Period (or not, in this case).
Three realities immediately emerge. First, the Democratic Party is officially and irretrievably anti-science. As I have argued extensively in the past — because these are the kinds of things that need to be argued about extensively these days — "woman" and "man" are biological categories. They have fixed definitions. A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male. This is how Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, the Oxford dictionary, the Collins dictionary, the Columbia encyclopedia, and every other reference I have ever checked, all define those words. Liberals wish to throw out these definitions and rip out pages from every dictionary and encyclopedia on Earth, but they have not proposed a coherent alternative definition. That's because it isn't possible to come up with a definition of "woman" that still allows women to be women while also allowing men to be women, for the same reason that you can't come up with a definition of triangle that still allows triangles to be triangles while also allowing circles to be triangles.