This comment of Sastra’s sent me to the source to get the full context.

The source is

SEC. 1101. DEFINITIONS AND RULES.
``(1) Race; color; religion; sex; sexual orientation; 
        gender identity; national origin.--The term `race', `color', 
        `religion', `sex', `sexual orientation', `gender identity', or 
        `national origin', used with respect to an individual, 
        includes--
 ``(A) the race, color, religion, sex, sexual 
                orientation, gender identity, or national origin, 
                respectively, of another person with whom the 
                individual is associated or has been associated; and
                    ``(B) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, 
                concerning the race, color, religion, sex, sexual 
                orientation, gender identity, or national origin, 
                respectively, of the individual.

``(2) Gender identity.--The term `gender identity' means 
        the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other 
        gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of 
        the individual's designated sex at birth.

There.

It’s disconcerting. How? In its flimsiness, its triviality, its lack of the heft, the inescapability, the reality of race and sex and the others. Mannerisms??? We’re basing equality legislation on mannerisms now? Are they serious? There’s also the circularity of course. What does gender identity mean? It means the gender-related identity. Ohhhhh, thanks, that clears that up.

And on the basis of this circular absurd trivial nonsense they passed a law protecting men who want to elbow women out of women’s sports and prizes and jobs and everything else. Based on the men’s mannerisms.

Christ on a bike.