Federal court rejects Biden admin redefinition of 'sex' in Title IX across country

[anatta]

the new RW buzz phrase is "common sense".. ya buddy

Victory for women, girls: Federal court rejects Biden admin redefinition of ‘sex’ in Title IX across country

ADF attorneys represent high-school female athlete, Christian educators in successful legal challenge against Dept. of Ed. rule change

adfmedia.org

Thursday, Jan 9, 2025

COVINGTON, Ky. – A federal district court in Kentucky issued a decision Thursday in State of Tennessee v. Cardona that blocks the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to change the meaning of “sex” in Title IX—a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics—to include “gender identity.” Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent a West Virginia high-school female athlete and Christian Educators Association International in the lawsuit alongside the state of Tennessee. The district court ruling applies nationwide and to every part of the Biden Title IX rule, meaning the rule is completely invalidated, and the U.S. Department of Education is unable to enforce it—anywhere.

On April 29, the Biden administration announced it would redefine “sex” in Title IX rules to include “gender identity,” requiring schools to disregard longstanding sex-based protections that respect the biological differences between men and women. ADF attorneys joined several states, women’s groups, athletic associations, and school boards in achieving five injunctions that halt enforcement of the rule change in some jurisdictions as the lawsuits proceed. The district court ruling halts the Biden rule nationwide. Along with ADF, the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Indiana, and West Virginia sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, which ruled the Biden administration rule change exceeded authority and was “arbitrary and capricious agency action.”

“[W]hen Title IX is viewed in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female,” the court wrote in its opinion. “As this Court and others have explained, expanding the meaning of ‘on the basis of sex’ to include ‘gender identity’ turns Title IX on its head.”

“Title IX,” the court continued, allows “males and females to be separated based on the enduring physical differences between the sexes.”

 

[eman623]

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yep, if a person could self-identify as the opposite sex then why couldn’t they self-identify as any age?

 

[anatta]

“[W]hen Title IX is viewed in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female,” the court wrote in its opinion. “As this Court and others have explained, expanding the meaning of ‘on the basis of sex’ to include ‘gender identity’ turns Title IX on its head.”

“Title IX,” the court continued, allows “males and females to be separated based on the enduring physical differences between the sexes.”

 

[anatta]

Yep, if a person could self-identify as the opposite sex then why couldn’t they self-identify as any age?

I wanted to be a spaceman
I wanted to be it so bad
But now that I am a spaceman
I'd rather be back on the pad (Harry Nilsson)

 

[Cameron]

Why should Title IX be interpreted differently from Title VII?

“On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020), which held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court states that the “answer is clear” as to whether terminating an employee based on his or her sexual orientation falls within the definition of sex discrimination because “sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The Court’s decision is very direct, stating that “these cases involve no more than the straight-forward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings. For an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex. That has always been prohibited by Title VII’s plain terms – and that ‘should be the end of the analysis.’” The Court reasons that “if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer – a statutory violation has occurred.” Justice Gorsuch goes on to say: “The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.” He closes by saying that no ambiguity exists in this case: Title VII protects LGBTQ+ workers from being discriminated against.“

Expanding the definition of sex: SCOTUS rules employers cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020), which held

www.employmentlawwatch.com

When even Gorsuch thinks you’re being a bigot, you’re probably being a bigot.

 

[VySky]

the new RW buzz phrase is "common sense".. ya buddy

Victory for women, girls: Federal court rejects Biden admin redefinition of ‘sex’ in Title IX across country

ADF attorneys represent high-school female athlete, Christian educators in successful legal challenge against Dept. of Ed. rule change

adfmedia.org

Thursday, Jan 9, 2025

COVINGTON, Ky. – A federal district court in Kentucky issued a decision Thursday in State of Tennessee v. Cardona that blocks the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to change the meaning of “sex” in Title IX—a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics—to include “gender identity.” Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent a West Virginia high-school female athlete and Christian Educators Association International in the lawsuit alongside the state of Tennessee. The district court ruling applies nationwide and to every part of the Biden Title IX rule, meaning the rule is completely invalidated, and the U.S. Department of Education is unable to enforce it—anywhere.

On April 29, the Biden administration announced it would redefine “sex” in Title IX rules to include “gender identity,” requiring schools to disregard longstanding sex-based protections that respect the biological differences between men and women. ADF attorneys joined several states, women’s groups, athletic associations, and school boards in achieving five injunctions that halt enforcement of the rule change in some jurisdictions as the lawsuits proceed. The district court ruling halts the Biden rule nationwide. Along with ADF, the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Indiana, and West Virginia sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, which ruled the Biden administration rule change exceeded authority and was “arbitrary and capricious agency action.”

“[W]hen Title IX is viewed in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female,” the court wrote in its opinion. “As this Court and others have explained, expanding the meaning of ‘on the basis of sex’ to include ‘gender identity’ turns Title IX on its head.”

“Title IX,” the court continued, allows “males and females to be separated based on the enduring physical differences between the sexes.”

I always liked Covington Ky.

So the lefts war on words faced another rejection.

This time by the court

Why does the left like to try and change the definition of words like sex to include how one pretends their gender to be?

Sorry, feelings do not apply.

Stay in your bathroom society expects you to stay in.

==================

A U.S. district court struck down President Joe Biden’s queer theory rewrite of Title IX nationwide on Thursday, blocking his administration from attempting to change the definition of “sex” to include claimed “gender identities.”

Kentucky U.S. District Court Chief Judge Danny C. Reeves, an appointee of President George W. Bush, blocked the Biden Department of Education’s new Title IX rules.

Those rules would have forced schools to allow boys in girls’ private spaces like restrooms and locker rooms, required teachers to refer to children with “preferred pronouns,” and made girls sleep in the same facilities as boys on events like overnight field trips.

The Biden rules also stripped the due process rights of persons accused of sexual assault on college campuses, bringing back Obama-era “kangaroo courts” designed to give life to false accusations.

Court Strikes Down Biden's Title IX Trans Overhaul Nationwide

A court blocked Biden's radical rewrite of Title IX nationwide, stopping his administration from attempting to change the definition of 'sex.'

thefederalist.com

 

[Napoleon]

Why should Title IX be interpreted differently from Title VII?

Because they’re different issues. The question is whether or not there is a compelling reason for sex segregation in some cases (which is what Title IX is used for) and whether there is material harm done in those cases. If the answer is no to the former then kiss goodbye to sex segregated bathrooms, sports leagues, etc.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why should Title IX be interpreted differently from Title VII?

Because the purposes of those two parts of the statute are opposites. Title IX justifies (allows?) ‘separate but equal’ (segregation based on sex) while Title VII prohibits that practice.

 

[eohrnberger]

the new RW buzz phrase is "common sense".. ya buddy

Victory for women, girls: Federal court rejects Biden admin redefinition of ‘sex’ in Title IX across country

ADF attorneys represent high-school female athlete, Christian educators in successful legal challenge against Dept. of Ed. rule change

adfmedia.org

Thursday, Jan 9, 2025

COVINGTON, Ky. – A federal district court in Kentucky issued a decision Thursday in State of Tennessee v. Cardona that blocks the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to change the meaning of “sex” in Title IX—a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics—to include “gender identity.” Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent a West Virginia high-school female athlete and Christian Educators Association International in the lawsuit alongside the state of Tennessee. The district court ruling applies nationwide and to every part of the Biden Title IX rule, meaning the rule is completely invalidated, and the U.S. Department of Education is unable to enforce it—anywhere.

On April 29, the Biden administration announced it would redefine “sex” in Title IX rules to include “gender identity,” requiring schools to disregard longstanding sex-based protections that respect the biological differences between men and women. ADF attorneys joined several states, women’s groups, athletic associations, and school boards in achieving five injunctions that halt enforcement of the rule change in some jurisdictions as the lawsuits proceed. The district court ruling halts the Biden rule nationwide. Along with ADF, the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Indiana, and West Virginia sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, which ruled the Biden administration rule change exceeded authority and was “arbitrary and capricious agency action.”

“[W]hen Title IX is viewed in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female,” the court wrote in its opinion. “As this Court and others have explained, expanding the meaning of ‘on the basis of sex’ to include ‘gender identity’ turns Title IX on its head.”

“Title IX,” the court continued, allows “males and females to be separated based on the enduring physical differences between the sexes.”

Good. At least some of very bad ideas which Biden (more so the radicals in his admin - as he's aware of nothing at this point) are being blocked.
Also too bad that so many weren't.

 

[eohrnberger]

“[W]hen Title IX is viewed in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female,” the court wrote in its opinion. “As this Court and others have explained, expanding the meaning of ‘on the basis of sex’ to include ‘gender identity’ turns Title IX on its head.”

“Title IX,” the court continued, allows “males and females to be separated based on the enduring physical differences between the sexes.”

The court is supporting the realities of biology. Good.

 

[Helix]

The far right surrendered "common sense" to its addiction to faux and Russian propaganda. The silver lining is that the rest of us never have to take its "common sense" rants seriously ever again.


Oh, and in US English, it's "yeah," not "ya."

 

[Cameron]

Because the purposes of those two parts of the statute are opposites. Title IX justifies (allows?) ‘separate but equal’ (segregation based on sex) while Title VII prohibits that practice.

Title IX broadly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education. It permits separate bathroom facilities and athletic teams, and so on those limited subjects permits sex-based distinctions, but there is no reasons it’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination should not bar anti-trans bigotry in areas like discipline, recruiting and admissions, course opportunities, and internship placements, all of which are covered by Title IX.

 

[BirdinHand]

And it will wind its way to SCOTUS eventually

 

[ttwtt78640]

Title IX broadly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education. It permits separate bathroom facilities and athletic teams, and so on those limited subjects permits sex-based distinctions, but there is no reasons it’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination should not bar anti-trans bigotry in areas like discipline, recruiting and admissions, course opportunities, and internship placements, all of which are covered by Title IX.

The court appears to have ruled that someone’s self-defined gender identity doesn’t change their biological sex.

 

[maxparrish]

Why should Title IX be interpreted differently from Title VII?

“On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020), which held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court states that the “answer is clear” as to whether terminating an employee based on his or her sexual orientation falls within the definition of sex discrimination because “sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The Court’s decision is very direct, stating that “these cases involve no more than the straight-forward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings. For an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex. That has always been prohibited by Title VII’s plain terms – and that ‘should be the end of the analysis.’” The Court reasons that “if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer – a statutory violation has occurred.” Justice Gorsuch goes on to say: “The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.” He closes by saying that no ambiguity exists in this case: Title VII protects LGBTQ+ workers from being discriminated against.“

Expanding the definition of sex: SCOTUS rules employers cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020), which held

www.employmentlawwatch.com

When even Gorsuch thinks you’re being a bigot, you’re probably being a bigot.

First, the question you ought to be asking is why Bostock was a deeply flawed opinion and why should it then be used as a springboard to make another one?

Second, as I recall the opinion in Bostick warned that this decision should not be taken as applying to other situations or laws.

Third, the nature of Title 9 has been to ban discrimination on the basis of sex AND to provide equal opportunity for women (which in turn requires discrimination by providing participation only on the basis of each sex).

"Because of sex" is the very basis of Title 9, different than Title 7 and employment law.

 

[j brown's body]

First, the question you ought to be asking is why Bostock was a deeply flawed opinion and why should it then be used as a springboard to make another one?

Second, as I recall the opinion in Bostick warned that this decision should not be taken as applying to other situations or laws.

Third, the nature of Title 9 has been to ban discrimination on the basis of sex AND to provide equal opportunity for women (which in turn requires discrimination by providing participation only on the basis of each sex).

"Because of sex" is the very basis of Title 9, different than Title 7 and employment law.

When you look at the discrepancy in funding between men and women's sports, one has to ask, "are they serious?"

 

[maxparrish]

The Court made the following points:

- Title 9 sought to level the playing field between men (defined by their sex) and women (defined by their sex). However, it is also "rife with exceptions".

- For example, it allows men and women to be separated on the basis of sex such as living facilities, male and female conferences, and male and female social organizations (eg Greeks).

- The purpose of Title IX is to prevent discrimination based on sex, not gender. The Biden administrations attempt to mandate transgender access to showers, locker rooms, and sexual education classes, among others based on a person's "sense of gender" is an assault on the laws "equal protection" of women.

- Confirming the arbitrary nature of these new regulations, the Department offered no rational explanation for the stark inconsistencies that will result if the Final Rule is allowed to go forward.

- The Biden administration regulations attempted to make Title IX recipients, including teachers, to use names and pronouns associated with a student’s asserted gender identity. The new subjective harassment standard that need only “limit” participation in an educational program or activity, quite clearly compels this result. In turn if violates the First Amendment by compelling the expression of beliefs on other individuals, not held by those compelled.

https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/TennesseeAppellateOpinion.pdf

 

[Gatsby]

I'm glad to see that Title IX, which was created to give women equal opportunities in sports, can't be construed to do exactly the opposite, by allowing men to take over women's sports.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why should Title IX be interpreted differently from Title VII?

“On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020), which held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court states that the “answer is clear” as to whether terminating an employee based on his or her sexual orientation falls within the definition of sex discrimination because “sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The Court’s decision is very direct, stating that “these cases involve no more than the straight-forward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings. For an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex. That has always been prohibited by Title VII’s plain terms – and that ‘should be the end of the analysis.’” The Court reasons that “if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer – a statutory violation has occurred.” Justice Gorsuch goes on to say: “The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.” He closes by saying that no ambiguity exists in this case: Title VII protects LGBTQ+ workers from being discriminated against.“

Expanding the definition of sex: SCOTUS rules employers cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020), which held

www.employmentlawwatch.com

When even Gorsuch thinks you’re being a bigot, you’re probably being a bigot.

Seems like it is interpreted the same way.

If you fire a person that's dating a man because they are also a man that's discrimination on the basis of sex.