The arguments on all sides of the hate-speech debate (civil libertarians, civil rights adherents, and accomodationists) are critically examined in terms of the social and legal protection available to sex/gender outsiders. One chapter provides a historical overview of free-speech jurisprudence and explains the importance of free expression to sex/gender outsiders. The next chapter analyzes equality jurisprudence under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII and explores the interconnections between status based on religion and that based on gender identity or affectional orientation/preference. Another chapter scrutinizes the controversy surrounding the policies of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. This is done in the context of the harm lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgenderists experience from hate speech in a polity shaped by both the First Amendment and discrimination against sex/gender outsiders as characterized in the cases of State of Ohio v. Phipps and Bowers v. Hardwick. A chapter then analyzes the judicial response to hate regulations in four cases: Doe v. University of Michigan, UWM Post v. University of Wisconsin, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, and Wisconsin v. Mitchell. The concluding chapter advises that sex/gender outsiders should be wary of hate-speech restrictions, especially if those restrictions are not severely limited or are not linked to a comprehensive political, legal, and social agenda designed to eliminate discrimination on the basis of gender identity and affectional orientation/preference. Chapter notes, a 540-item bibliography, and a subject index