Sexuality, race, gender and other things you can't alter are protected legally. What you wear isn't.
First three things that jumped to mind:
1: You can't alter gender identity.
2: You can alter gender.
3: If Michael Jackson is any indication, you can alter race.
Okay, in all seriousness, what part of gender identity being protected legally do you object to? The fact that it's a primarily psychological-behavioral condition rather than physiological? But then...you seem okay with sexual preference being protected legally.
Let me take the focus off of clothing for a minute. What about, for example, behavioral. There are gay men who naturally talk like Valley Girls. Should an employer be legally allowed to fire them over that? Bear in mind that it is possible to change your voice pattern, but it takes hours of daily practice, and usually also the help of a professional trainer. (Without that level of practice, you will slip unconsciously into your default voice half the time you talk, even if you are making an effort).
Hi, I'm Mr. Strawman. I've had a busy few days in this thread. Could you please stop dragging me here every other post? I want a break since the healthcare debate is keeping me busy.
Umm...okay, if you're making an actual objection here you're going to have to clarify what it is because I can't decipher what you actually mean.
You're arguing something completely different now. No one approves of or considers denying promotions based on gender to be fair at all. A company would and could get in major trouble for denying an employee a raise/promotion because of sex/gender/whatever.
Uh, Super, you do realize that my example was structural not parallel, right? Here, let me try another example, and then slowly walk you through what I'm trying to show:
The response being to Grefter's "if you're in that situation, you should get another job".
Another token example being that in the 90s there was a debate in Vancouver about whether or not smoking should be banned in bars. The argument against it being that people who don't like the smoke can go to another bar. The argument for it being...how? All the bars allow smoking.
The purpose of this example is to say "no, you can't just argue go somewhere else if it's like that everywhere." The purpose of this example NOT being "second hand smoke is the same as discriminating against gender identity".
(I'm sorry if the purpose of my example wasn't clear--seemed obvious to me since it was a direct response to Grefter, not you >_>)