Court strikes down Biden’s Title IX ‘gender identity’ rule nationwide (9 January 2025)

[IwantToRetire]

The court’s decision to strike down the rule is being hailed as a major victory by opponents of the regulation. With President-elect Donald Trump heading into office in less than two weeks, an appeal from the federal government is highly unlikely, essentially rendering the rule dead.

The rule, implemented by President Joe Biden’s administration, reinterprets the Title IX ban on “sex” discrimination to include a ban on “gender identity” discrimination even though the phrase “gender identity” does not appear anywhere in the 1972 law.

Judge Danny C. Reeves of the District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled that the department “exceeded its statutory authority” in implementing the rule and found that the rule itself violates the United States Constitution because it would “chill speech” related to gender ideology and because it is “vague and overbroad” in how it is written.

The lawsuit against the Biden administration’s Title IX rule change was brought by attorneys general in six states: West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia. State officials warned the rule would override state laws that separate athletics, bathrooms, locker rooms, and dormitories on the basis of biological sex.

“This is a victory not only for the rule of law, but also for common sense and the safety of every student,” West Virginia Attorney General and Governor-elect Patrick Morrisey said in a statement.

“The Biden administration’s Title IX revisions would have ended sex-based protections for biological women in all aspects of education, and this would have marked a retreat from the progress women have made,” he added.

Reeves wrote in his ruling that the Title IX prohibition on sex discrimination is “abundantly clear” that the law refers to discrimination “on the basis of being male or female.” He wrote that “there is nothing in the text or statutory design of Title IX to suggest that discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ means anything other than it has since Title IX’s inception.”

“The entire point of Title IX is to prevent discrimination based on sex — throwing gender identity into the mix eviscerates the statute and renders it largely meaningless,” the court order read.

According to Reeves, if the department interpreted Title IX’s ban on sex-based harassment to include “gender identity,” it would “chill speech or compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees” in regard to speech related to the use of certain pronouns or about other aspects of gender ideology. He found that this violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

“The plaintiffs reasonably fear that teachers’ (and others’) speech concerning gender issues or their failure to use gender-identity-based pronouns would constitute harassment under the final rule,” the court order read.

Part of a longer article at https://ewtn.co.uk/article-court-strikes-down-bidens-title-ix-gender-identity-rule-nationwide/

Interesting, if you have time to see the difference between this article and how the Independent has covered this story. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-title-ix-ruling-transgender-students-b2676805.html

Good. The piggybacking of protections for gender nonconforming people onto Title IX should never have happened. Not the same thing and sometimes in active conflict but tried to make it sound like gender and sex are identical.

Wonderful.

Good. One brick at a time.

Great news!

Here's an archive link for the Independent's take on it, if anyone doesn't want the cookies and adverts:

https://archive.ph/2kOP4

From the Independent (my bold):

"Biden’s rule changes sought to clarify that long-standing protections against sex-based discrimination also include harassment and abuse around sexual orientation and gender identity."

Does anyone know if it's true that a) his rule changes included protection from harassment and abuse regarding sexual orientation and b) that this protection has now been removed?

None of the quotes mention sexual orientation at all, so it's not clear that anyone was opposing this protection. If it was included in Biden's amendment, I hope it's still there now. Protection for this doesn't impact anyone else. It's only when we get into the weeds of what "harassment" and "abuse" actually mean for people who identify as trans that it becomes contentious.

And on that point, this desperate hyperbole is quite something (my bold):

"The ruling comes as Republican members of Congress <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/2kOP4/www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2025/1/sen-johnson-joins-tuberville-colleagues-to-introduce-hallmark-legislation-to-preserve-title-ix-protect-women-s-sports" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">advance legislation to formally amend Title IX definitions to treat gender as “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth,” effectively wiping out the existence of trans or intersex people."

Really?!?! Nobody's existence has been wiped out. They just need to compete in the sports for their sex category and not get changed with members of the opposite sex.

Yaaaaaay!!

The Independent article is a good example of how the term LGBT+ is used to suggest that opposing extreme transgenderism is the same as opposing L&G rights.
The T in LGBT+ represents a group which is fundamentally different from what the LGB stands for - LGB is about sexual orientation, T is about gender identity, and they are not the same thing. It has been damaging to the lesbian and gay community to have that T for trans tacked on, and the sooner they are separated in acronyms and in the public mind, the better.

As far as I can see this ruling on Title IX does not interfere with the rights of lesbian and gay people, it simply re-affirms 'male' and 'female' as definitions based on biology not ideology. In fact that would actually benefit lesbians who are under pressure to accept biological males as lesbians.

So the Independent headline should read
Judge throws out Biden’s ‘arbitrary’ protections for T+ students
That's a different story, isn't it?
LGB✂T

Good, Biden's amendments caused so much harm to women and girls. Particularly athletes who lost out on sporting opportunities and scholarships and were harassed in changing rooms and told they were bigots for pointing out harm.

It doesn't matter who is restoring these rights ultimately but, my goodness, what a let down the Democrats were in refusing to see the problem.

Excellent and long overdue. Here's hoping that the UK judges in the FWS case are looking over the pond and nodding gently.

Well, it's excellent news indeed and a dose of rationality. Like others, I wonder if other countries will be taking note; if so, hopefully not in "Nasty Trump, let's not follow that," style.

Trump's an abusive, corrupt sack of shit, but if he gets one thing right, this is a good one.

More good news in the task of taking down this anti women and girls agenda.

BonfireLady: "Does anyone know if it's true that a) his rule changes included protection from harassment and abuse regarding sexual orientation..."

Yes, as far as I can discern what happened:
His (Biden's) regulation amended Title IX law - which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education - to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

This was based on a majority 6-3 Supreme Court Decision in 2020, Boston vs Clayton County, where a worker was sacked because of his sexual orientation and the ruling judgment reasoned that it was impossible to consider someone's sexual orientation without first considering their sex.Title VII of civil rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

As I understand the position from reading the reports online (not read the judgment), now a federal judge in Kentucky, in an appeal by six States, has ruled that the President exceeded his authority, and has thrown out the whole Biden regulation (in at least in six states, presumably; 26 others have already blocked it via courts), effectively returning to the interpretation of Title VII that prevailed before Boston v Clayton County, which is basically discrimination between men and women.

This appears to stand, unless and until there is an appeal or Congress passes legislation to give protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, or a President finds some other way.

I must admit I get really lost in the US legal system.

Never sure why some court decisions just relate to the state where the case is heard.

But this case seems to mean that the outcome is US wide.

Which in this case is obviously good.

I was almost taken aback to read that a Judge was able to say that talking about biological reality was just that. Biological reality.

The entire point of Title IX is to prevent discrimination based on sex — throwing gender identity into the mix eviscerates the statute and renders it largely meaningless.

Excellent ruling and the language is clear and unequivocal.

Biden's attempted change was following the Denton playbook - attach genderwoo to a worthy and popular cause - civil rights for LGB people. Claim falsely that they are an indivisible package and abjure objectors to genderwoo as homophobes or reactionaries.

But in fact this was never about gay and lesbian rights. These are cover by another Title (VII?)

This law is explicitly about Sex and Sex discrimination.

That's why what the judge said about trying to tag gender in as though it is the same as sex makes talking about sex discrimination "meaningless".

So this is not just important because it reverses this attempt to say gender identity are the same as sex, but a judge has said talking about sex and gender as though they are the same is not logical.

It is worth making a note of his comment, because if this ruling is now national, it means a court has ruled that in the US you cant base law on any statement that tries to say sex and gender identity are the same.