Riley Gaines speaking with attendees at the 2023 Pastors Summit. From: Wikipedia | Gage Skidmore. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
THE TITLE IX DISMANTLING IN THE NAME OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY MAY HAVE HIT A WALL
OVERVIEW & INTRODUCTION
Over the weekend, Riley Gaines, the gifted voice of women’s rights in sports (actual women), uttered one of the most brilliant political messages I have ever heard:
“Many women are voting for Kamala Harris because she is a woman. I am voting for Donald Trump because I am a woman.”
Spot on. The courts may be listening, and it is time to fine-tune the meaning of “discrimination based upon sex” in the unique public policy context underlying Title IX. This is the intention: to protect the viability and opportunity for biological WOMEN and GIRLS to meet their dreams undeterred by biological males who enjoy an evolutionary advantage in all but chess. Particularly in the post-pubescent theater of Lia Thomas that we saw in women’s swimming, the results of which propelled Ms. Gaines onto the public stage, the destruction of these dreams and the controversy involved have hit the courts. What follows is a primer for all who have daughters and who believe in the rule of law unpolluted by raw politics.
On August 16th, in a Per Curiam opinion (“for the Court”), the United States Supreme Court declined to lift a stay of an injunction imposed by District Courts in Louisiana and Kentucky putting the brakes on enforcement of a “final rule,” read law, issued by the Department of Education charged with implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, in which “sex discrimination” became newly defined by the Biden Administration to include:
“…discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”
This end-around Congress and the Administrative Procedure Act cemented the force of law, placing men in women’s locker rooms. In the name of avoiding “discrimination,” men who couldn’t compete against men suddenly are demolishing women in myriad sports based upon a purely subjective “gender identity.” This is the “inclusive” part of “DEI,” which, on any objective basis, has left many biological females on a very unlevel playing field, turning the policy behind Title IX into an empty promise.
The Attorney’s General of several states immediately leaped into the fray, having the temerity to protect the biological women in their jurisdictions from politically expedient predation. They challenged this 423-page mandate from Biden’s hand-picked stooges in the Department of Education to bring home the promises of “inclusion” and virtue signaling on a grand scale. These mandates, which have the force of law and come with funding for blackmail, include:
-
- (a) Allowing boys in girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and hotel rooms;
- (b) Requiring teachers and students to use a person’s preferred pronouns and so-called neopronouns (“fae/faer/faers”);
- (c) Redefining sex discrimination as set forth above.
So if you use common sense and exercise the basic tenets of undeniable biological and genetic sex, when you address or classify a student, you may be charged with discrimination, or worse, you may be forced to say things that you do not want to. “Fae,” “Faer,” what the hell is that? Say it, or lose the federal public breast and get the feds to run your school district. Yes, folks, this infusion of political correctness into a law on the books since 1972 has thankfully met with strong rebukes by federal courts in Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, and others. Not one federal court has ruled that this nonsense is “likely lawful.” It will not be long before our Supreme Court will get this issue and perhaps, fully and completely, vindicate the policy and purposes behind the 1972 law—protect women.
THE UNDENIABLE PURPOSE BEHIND THE LAW- LEARN IT
Herein, I quote liberally from the State of Louisiana’s brief in the Supreme Court opposing lifting the stay on this garbage. Department of Education v. State of Louisiana et als Docket No. 24A78:
…Motivated by the “corrosive and unjustified discrimination against women” in “all facets of education.” 118 Cong. Rec. 5730, 5803 (Feb. 28, 1972) (Statement of Sen. Bayh), Congress enacted Title IX “to avoid the use of federal resources to support [such] discriminatory practices,” and to that end, the law prohibits “on the basis of sex” discrimination under “any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. Section 1681(a). Not to be confused with the notion of discrimination on the basis of sex in other contexts, the meaning of sex in a law designed to protect women, in its ordinary, plain meaning sense, is a person’s biological sex—male or female—which is an immutable characteristic determined at birth. Not a state of mind, not the result of hormone infusions or invasive surgery. Differentiation based on biological differences between the sexes is perfectly consistent with the goals of Title IX. The leap to discrimination is a bridge too far.
The battle lines are therefore drawn. The Supreme Court can kick the can down the road and hold that the Administrative Procedure Act was sidestepped and have the Department of Education return to the drawing board, or it can fully and completely end this madness by defining “sex” in this specific context to protect women already the victims of an unlevel playing field. Enter Riley Gaines and a movement that protects women from “women.”
The Harris Administration would double down on this blackmail while Trump remains committed to state determination and the actual protection of women. Hope springs eternal that the Department of Education will be disbanded as unconstitutional in its execution, and the whole issue will become a very bad memory. Stay tuned.
Mike Imprevento
August 2024
