Louisiana Sues Biden Over Title IX Interpretation Allowing Males in Female Sports and Spaces
Idaho, Mississippi, and Montana joined the lawsuit.
Louisiana filed a lawsuit against President Joe Biden over clarifications that Title IX allows men in female sports and spaces.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said: “This is all for a political agenda, ignoring significant safety concerns for young women students in pre-schools, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges and universities across Louisiana and the entire country. These schools now have to change the way they behave and the way they speak, and whether they can have private spaces for little girls or women. It is enormously invasive, and it is much more than a suggestion; it is a mandate that well exceeds their statutory authority. This all coming from the people who don’t even know how to define the word ‘woman.’ I’ll always stand up for children and families across this state.”
Idaho, Mississippi, and Montana joined the lawsuit.
“For 50 years Title IX has protected girls and women’s rights, but President Biden has abandoned those protections to appease the woke left,” stated Montana Attorney General Knudsen. “This rule is not based in scientific reality. It redefines biological sex which will allow men to compete in women’s sports, violate women’s privacy, and put women and girls in dangerous situations on campus. I will continue to fight to protect women and uphold Montana’s laws against federal overreach.”
The Final Rule is 89 FR 33474 – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
The Department clarified “sex-based harassment” to include discrimination against “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”
“In addition, the Rule subverts Title IX’s purpose and will particularly harm the precise population that Title IX was meant to help most – women and girls, who will now face increased threats to privacy and safety, not to mention will lose spots on sports teams and podiums,” wrote the plaintiffs.
The Department of Education refused to provide a narrow definition of “sex” “to avoid overbroad application of a prohibition on discrimination based on sex stereotypes.”
Sex is either male or female.
But without defining sex or using the actual definition of sex, the Department of Education can use sex and “gender identity” in the same ways.
“The central feature of the Final Rule is the Department’s extraordinary move to transform Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination based on ‘sex’ to include discrimination based on ‘gender identity’ – a wildly ambiguous term that itself is never fully defined in the Final Rule but that the Department describes as a student’s subjective and internal ‘sense’ of his or her gender,” the plaintiffs wrote in the lawsuit.
“And based on that key move, the Department sets out to remake our educational system and our children,” they added.
The plaintiffs mentioned how the rule requires teachers and students to use a person’s preferred pronouns.
The Department lumped not using those pronouns with sex-based harassment:
Thus, harassing a student—including acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on the student’s nonconformity with stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity or gender identity—can constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX in certain circumstances.
Using the Department’s definition of “sex” means that males can play on female sports:
Except as provided elsewhere in this part, no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, or other education program or activity operated by a recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
Plus, the Department did not find any problems with males using female bathrooms, locker rooms, and other female-only spaces:
The Department does not agree with commenters who alleged there is evidence that transgender students pose a safety risk to cisgender students, or that the mere presence of a transgender person in a single sex space compromises anyone’s legitimate privacy interest. In many cases, Federal courts have rejected claims that treating students consistent with their gender identity necessarily harms cisgender students in violation of Title IX.
The plaintiffs disagree because sex means male or female:
Finally, the Rule pretends that its dramatic overhaul of Title IX will have no impact on whether it is permissible for schools to have separate athletic teams for women and girls. But that cannot be right since the Rule takes the position that treating someone consistent with his or her biological sex when they claim to be of the opposite sex constitutes more than de minimus harm and sex discrimination. That logic means that, in at least some circumstances, recipients would be required to allow males to play on female-only teams to comply with the Rule’s interpretation of Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination.
This has to stop. I’ve watched what has happened in Scotland and a few other countries. Don’t let it explode over here. We have the opportunity to stop this madness now.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Just find Title IX unconstitutional in the first place.
A better step for Louisiana? Simple defiance. Refuse to allow males in female sports and spaces.
Sounds like that’s what they’re going to do in Florida.
Title 9 is the only reason probably 80% of women’s college sports exist in the first place. They bring no crowds, no sponsors, and cost the college quite a bit in equipment and scholarships.
The only reason they exist is because Title 9 DEMANDED that they have ‘equal’ numbers of men’s and women’s athletes/scholarships, so they artificially created a bunch of sports nobody watches to balance out their enormously profitable football teams, which have no female equivalent.
If they aren’t actually women in those spots anymore, then Title 9 has no existential purpose and should simply be abolished. Which of course would lead to all of those women’s sports teams being cut.
But you know what? I’m 100% fine with that. College age women are OVERWHELMINGLY Democrats.
Let them enjoy getting exactly what they voted for.
Other than womens basketball and volleyball, most schools have to actively search for enough players to field a team in the other sports in order to satisfy the Title 9 requirements
The new Title IX rules should be titled:
“Establishment of Rights for Voyeurs and Mediocre Male Athletes.”
Now, voyeurs don’t need to drill peep holes in the ladies’ locker room walls. They can just put on a wig, “identify” as women, and go in and watch the parade.
Mediocre male athletes don’t have to sit on the sidelines any more, either. They can just “identify” as women, and be highly competitive in any sport they choose. Frankly, I’m waiting for some men to compete in women’s professional soccer, since some of those players practically invited them to come and play.
When a professional women’s soccer team, even one led by a purple haired lesbian, can be beaten by a bunch of high school boys, then possibly someone might infer that there is a physiological difference between the sexes.
Never met a Lefty capable of rational thought.
Cute that you imagine anyone on their side can correctly “infer” anything.
Dictatorship of the Bureaucracy
That’s our actual, de facto, form of government.
Its not just that the federal bureaucracy has become, effectively, a 4th branch of government. It goes way beyond that. It functions as a Legislature, Executive and Judiciary all rolled into one.
In order for the federal govt to overrule a “rule” issued by a bureaucracy, you need the House & Senate to both vote it down and the President to sign off on that. This turns the Constitution completely on its head: each executive branch bureaucracy has the power to issue “rules” and “regulations” that all carry the force of law (jail time and $$ fines for non-compliance), and they issue them without Congress ever voting or the President signing off on them.
Then, if you challenge one of their regulations, you’re typically in front of a “judge” that is not confirmed by the Senate, and not a Federal Judge at all, but rather an in-house (literally in the same building) panel of non-judges working for that same bureaucracy.
For businesses nationwide, most of the “laws” they must comply with are not laws at all, but rather are just federal regulations.
Aside from the obvious violation of the “non-delegation” clause in the US Constitution, there is also the Federalism problem – these rules and regulations usurp the authority of the State legislatures (and of the people through referendum). Issues that the federal govt does not have specified powers to legislate on are, in fact, being “legislated” by federal bureaucracies. in clear defiance of State authority and laws.
The complaint is well written and persuasive.
Under the statute, the 1975, Congress retained the authority to disapprove the regulations. During the review period, both houses had resolutions that provided for disapproval. None of the resolutions were approved.
Therefore, the original regulations reflect Congress’ statutory intent.
The complaint recognizes this fact:
36. Given the special congressional scrutiny that the 1975 Regulations endured, the Supreme Court has repeatedly “recognized the probative value” of the 1975 Regulations in light of “Title IX’s unique post enactment history.” Grove City Coll. v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 567 (1984).
The case will likely win at the district court level
The case will definitely win at the CA5 appeals level
It will be a crap shoot at the Supreme court. – though I suspect Gorsuch will not make the same mistake as he did in Bostock
In landmark guidance, the federal commission created to fight racial and sexual discrimination declared Monday that employers that fail to use a worker’s preferred pronoun or refuse them the chance to use the restroom of their choice will be engaging in prohibited harassment.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published the new harassment guidelines Monday after voting along partisan lines on Friday to approve them, even in the face of opposition from nearly two dozen red states. Three Democratic appointees approved the rules while two Republicans opposed them.