Biden administration redefines sex discrimination in Title IX to include ‘gender identity’

Yeah. That's true.

Shit choice for America again though, isn't it?

I thought that then considered that he has handed it to Trump already, by virtue of the fact he’s put himself forward again.

I said that to DH when I sent him Riley Gaines' tweet about it.

A good 50 plus years ago feminists-joint coalition of the Democrat and Republican women-tried to pass the Equal Rights Amendment or ERA. It's still languishing and not in our Constitution. A very simple amendment, it speaks only to sex, not gender identity. This could have overpowered Roe v Wade loss btw.

American women, despite living in the home of the free and the brave, still do not have equal protection under the law.

Thank you.

Oh, I see. Thank you, @Delphinium20
So even worse - removing sex completely!
The only silver lining I can see is that it makes the rules easier to challenge in court on sex discrimination grounds and on workability.

There are many references in various laws but that would not necessarily apply to Title IX.

Here are the only references I can think of at the moment in the US Constitution:

Nineteenth Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't refer to women or sex directly but has been interpreted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

@GenderlessVoid
I think it's just WoLF, ICONS and the like who have your back in the US at the moment.

Martina Navratilova explains the danger this is to the Dems: https://twitter.com/Martina/status/1781393302710804542

Is there a definition of sex in US law, or any reference in the Constitution?

I don't like that part of the regs either. But I think ppl should understand what the regs do and what is still unclear.

I'm frustrated that neither party seems to care about women. Under the previous regulations, Trump made it difficult for women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted. Biden mostly fixed the (bad) changes Trump made to those parts of the regulations but now single sex facilities are in danger. I'm not even sure who is fighting for us to have strong protection from sexual assault/harassment and single sex facilities (and abortion rights).

Would that include pronouns? If you're not allowed to call a man "he" would that be against the first amendment?

Why would it be unconstitutional? (I don't disagree w you but, off the top of my head, I don't see why it would be unconstitutional.)

Main stumbling block would be if they do try to stop people stating people's actual sex. The First Amendment is pretty tight over there.

The LGB equality amendments seem fine.

It's the gender identity bits that seem problematic. I suppose I meant could this be subject to a judicial review type of process in the Supreme Court. On the grounds that the rationale doesn't make sense because gender identity isn't sex, so how can it be part of sex-based discrimination? Making everyone use facilities etc according to sex isn't treating gender-confused kids differently, it's treating them the same. That kind of thing. How is it sexual harassment to assert that a man is a man? You can make a (weak) case for trans harassment in very extreme cases but not sexual harassment. Calling a woman a woman isn't harassment, surely. Would calling a woman a man be sexual harassment?

Doesn't make sense. Gender identity and sex are in opposition.

By "natal sex" do you mean sex? As no one can change sex.

It says those things are up in the air.

Which is why it’s bad. It’s already been the case that even though it didn’t refer to gender identity, the gender identity of males has been prioritised. Now it does say gender identity. Wherever there’s a gender vs sex debate the default is to the males’ gender identity. It requires court to sort out any ambiguity, like Tickle vs Giggle in Australia. Any law or decree that requires court to define and sort out ambiguity is bad and this is especially bad because it’s to the cost - emotionally, physically and financially - of women and girls.

Riley may be overstating what the regulations require. I think the AP article is more complete and more balanced. It says those things are up in the air. Single sex facilities (at institutions covered by Title IX) are in danger but it's not yet clear how the new regulations will be applied in, e.g., states that require ppl to use bathrooms consistent with their natal sex.

My reply about applying Title IX to sexual orientation and gender identity addresses your question. I haven't read the regs but they address the EEOC's authority to promulgate the regs.

This change.

Which change?

If you mean applying Title IX to sexual orientation and gender identity, the EEOC's authority is discussed in the regs at 1231 et seq. (Authority to Enact Regulations on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination) I haven't read the regs yet but that would be a good place to start.

Why would it be unconstitutional? (I don't disagree w you but, off the top of my head, I don't see why it would be unconstitutional.)

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf

I find the article quite confusing.

Is this change constitutional?

This is a good article that provides an overview of the new regulations, although it focuses on the ones dealing with sexual harassment/misconduct. Most of the articles I've read, including this one, say that state laws requiring single sex bathrooms and locker rooms are uncertain or in jeopardy now (for institutions covered by Title IX) since institutions can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity.

https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-sexual-assault-transgender-sports-d0fc0ab7515de02b8e4403d0481dc1e7

This is very bad.

Sexual assault and harassment deprive women of an equal opportunity for an education. Here is what the law says

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

In the late 1970s, some students sued Yale University bc they had been sexually harassed or assaulted, most of them by faculty members, and Yale didn't provide any procedures for addressing their complaints. (Alexander v. Yale) The court found that Title IX applied to sexual harassment bc it was a form of sex discrimination.

The institutions contact law enforcement when it's warranted but doing so is not generally enough to meet their obligations under Title IX.

E.g., when Brock Turner raped Chanel Miller at Stanford University, they banned him from campus. He was supposed to have a disciplinary hearing but he withdrew from Stanford and was later banned for life. He was also prosecuted and received a ridiculously light sentence, which led to the judge being recalled

Riley Gaines sets it out