Joe Biden’s ‘sex’ agenda crashes and burns for third time

(Photo by David Hofmann on Unsplash)

For the third time in just recent weeks, Joe Biden’s “sex” agenda has crashed and burned when it has faced a federal judge.

The newest rejection of his rewrite to the decades-old Title IX law that changes the definition of “sex” to “gender identity” or ideology, comes from a judge in Kentucky who, in his preliminary injunction, protected women in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia and Weste Virginia.

Biden’s Department of Education has redefined “sex” from the 1972 law to include all sorts of alternative sexual ideologies, insisting that’s what Congress meant when it approved a ban on discrimination against men or women in school activities at the time.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Biden’s rules would force biological women to share private spaces, like showers and locker rooms, with gender-confused biological males.

“The radical rewrite of Title IX regulations eradicates privacy, safety, and fairness for biological women and girls. The lawsuits against forcing gender ideology in education have merit and the Biden administration’s obsession with erasing women must stop,” explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.

Just days ago, a Louisiana judge granted a similar injunction for the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho, and a Texas judge ruled for his state earlier.

According to Liberty Counsel’s report, “These injunctions prevent the updated rules from taking effect in these 11 states while litigation continues in each case to determine permanent decisions. The move responsible for the multitude of lawsuits came April 29 when the DOE published the Title IX Final Rule on the Federal Register, which expanded the definition of ‘sex’ and ‘sex discrimination’ to include ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as protected categories against discrimination.”

That change in the law, without approval from Congress, is supposed to hit the books in August.

The ruling is from Judge Danny C. Reeves.

He found, “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was intended to level the playing field between men and women in education. The statute tells us that no person shall be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ‘on the basis of sex.’ However, the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule that is set to go into effect on August 1, 2024. At bottom, the Department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’ But ‘sex’ and ‘gender identity’ do not mean the same thing. The Department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute. This Court is not persuaded by the Department’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, —a case that was explicitly limited to the context of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act…:”

WND reported earlier when the Louisiana ruling was released that the judge pointed out, “Nothing in the statute expressly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or other unexpressed grounds. And where Title IX allows for differentiation based on sex due to biological differences—such as intimate facilities and athletic teams—recipients may treat persons in accordance with their biological sex without regard to subjective gender identity.”

He said, “Title IX explicitly appreciates the innate biological variation between men and women that occasionally warrants differentiation—and even separation—to preserve educational opportunities and to promote respect for both sexes. Rather than promote the equal opportunity, dignity, and respect that Title IX demands for both biological sexes, Defendants’ Guidance Documents do the opposite in an effort to advance an agenda wholly divorced from the text, structure, and contemporary context of Title IX.”

Further, he noted, “Not to mention, recipients of Title IX funding—including Texas schools—will face an impossible choice: revise policies in compliance with the Guidance Documents but in contravention of state law or face the loss of substantial funding. Thus, to allow Defendants’ unlawful action to stand would be to functionally rewrite Title IX in a way that shockingly transforms American education and usurps a major question from Congress. That is not how our democratic system functions.”

That ruling said when the 1972 law was adopted, and refers to “sex,” it “carried an unambiguously binary meaning.”

For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].



* * *

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts