This is my interpretation of today's ruling about lgtbq, which I think I like after thinking about it for a few hours. It's mostly copy/pasted from other responses I've written so everything below is written by me. I'd like to get more thoughts on it because I'm definitely no legal scholar.

I actually agree with the ruling, but I also agree with others that political ideology wouldn't be a bad thing to add to our protected classes.

Person X is attracted to a man. If person X is female and you're ok with it but not if person X is male then that is sex discrimination. I literally haven't heard this argument until today.

Likewise let's say Person X wears skirts. If you're ok with X being female wearing skirts, but not ok with X being male wearing skirts then that is also sex discrimination.

Leftists wanted [males identifying as women] to be officially females, but this ruling literally does the exact opposite lol. The ruling opinion (from Gorsuch) literally says that males identifying as females are not females--they are males. However, if you're ok with a FEMALE doing something then you can't discriminate if a MALE does the same thing.

I honestly don't even think the left knows what this means yet. IMO this is a secret red pill. The ruling is both freedom oriented AND biology oriented and imo cements that males/females are determined at birth and are unrelated to gender.