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

[IwantToRetire]

President Joe Biden’s Department of Education issued new regulations on Friday, April 19, that prohibit discrimination based on a person’s “gender identity.”

The new rules, which will go into effect on Aug. 1, redefine the prohibition on sex discrimination for schools and education programs that receive federal funding — including K-12 schools and colleges and universities. Under the new interpretation of the Title IX protections, those rules now apply to any form of discrimination that is based on a person’s self-purported “gender identity.”

According to the executive summary of the Title IX revision, the changes are meant to “clarify that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

The summary further states that, except in certain situations, education institutions receiving federal funding cannot carry out “different treatment or separation on the basis of sex,” which includes a prohibition on any policy or practice that “prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with their gender identity.”

More at https://ewtn.co.uk/article-biden-administration-redefines-sex-discrimination-in-title-ix-to-include-gender-identity/

The quotes above are from a Catholic news source so if that is an issue for any one, here is another version of the news.

Biden finalizes Title IX rules to boost rights of sexual assault victims, LGBTQ students

The new rules are set to take effect just a few months before the presidential election, and will apply to sex-based discrimination complaints filed on or after Aug. 1.

The rules will reverse Trump-era policies that critics say for years have bolstered the rights of people accused of sexual assault on school campuses. When Joe Biden was running for president, he described his predecessors’ Title IX regulations as a "green light to ignore sexual violence and strip survivors of their rights.”

Under the new policy, colleges will be allowed to use a lower standard to find someone guilty of sexual misconduct. The federal government will also raise its expectations of schools across the country by requiring them to quickly respond to all types of sex-based discrimination – not just to sexual harassment, which is the current threshold.

And colleges will do away with a controversial requirement for live hearings, including potentially traumatic cross-examinations between victims and those they accuse of sex-based misconduct.

More at https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/04/19/title-ix-biden-trump/73369449007/

I think your extracts bury the lede a bit - what it means is that under this new rule, at any education institution, including many private schools that receive even nominal federal funding, by August 1, 2024 girls and women will no longer have sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms, housing accommodations, or other educational programs.

They claim there is a carve out for sports but it’s hard to see that lasting long with this change.
it’s beyond disgusting.

I've been furious about this all day.

Biden has handed the Republicans their election campaign right there. Utterly tone deaf.

Biden is a disgrace. Another woman hater abusing his position of power to take woman's rights away from them.

Looks like it. An unbelievable betrayal of women.

And colleges will do away with a controversial requirement for live hearings, including potentially traumatic cross-examinations between victims and those they accuse of sex-based misconduct

Forgive my ignorance, but why would colleges be handling sex based misconduct anyway? Surely if an administrator was told about a sexual assault they should be calling the police (and no, I don't think every sexual assault victim should report it to the police or feel pressured to do so. But the concept that its better to prosecute crimes internally seems flawed to me).

Dont understand what your mean. Sorry!

I posted extracts from 2 news reports as it is an interesting comparison as to what each source thinks is the most significant part.

The first focuses on how the concept of "sex" discrimination will now include gender identity ie denying what the word sex means.

The second on focuses on what it thinks is the most important, who cases of alleged sexual harassment are dealt with. But I was confused by this as it implies that sexual harassment is included under sex discrimination?

And also implies that discrimination against lesbians and gay ment is dealt with under sex discrimination. But that cant be what has happened surely?

Independent Women’s Forum and Independent Women’s Law Center (IWLC) are preparing to sue the Biden administration to enjoin this unlawful action.

https://www.iwf.org/2024/04/19/bidens-title-ix-rewrite-strips-away-protections-for-women-denies-women-equal-opportunity/

Breaking Down the New Title IX Regulation
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/new-title-ix-rules-a-dark-week-for-womens-sports

I don’t get it either. I remember reading about colleges dealing with such cases decades ago. It’s strange that it’s still going on as they don’t seem equipped to deal with such serious issues.

Riley Gaines sets it out

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

This is very bad.

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

Is this change constitutional?

I find the article quite confusing.

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

This change.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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