That is your OPINION.
The DOCUMENTATION I provided in the OP are historical facts, and they refute Justices Gorsuch's Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to the meaning of "sex' as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
Gorsuch's assertion that the word "sex", as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is intended to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct defies the very clear and unmistakable intentions for adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, and contemporary news accounts of the Act, confirms Senator Howard added the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to ensure that "women" would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination, the same as minorities had a remedy to fight racial discrimination. Adding the word "sex" had nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior in the workplace.
But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex. Of course, attempts have been made over the years starting in the 1920s to add an amendment to the United States Constitution granting such power to Congress, e.g.,
“ Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
“ Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
“ Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.”
But such attempts have repeatedly failed.
So, where does Congress get the authority in 1964, or today, "to enforce, by appropriate legislation," prohibiting distinctions being made in the workplace based upon "sex", when the people refuse to grant such power to Congress?
When our federal judicial system ignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, and assents to acts contrary to the established rule of law, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
Cherry picking quotes to support your reactionary position are OPINIONS NOT FACTS.
Get back to me when you know the difference.
So, you can't refute historical facts can you? Instead, you obfuscate and deflect.