From The Daily Signal:
On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court ruled against a Virginia school district that sought to accommodate a transgender student while also protecting the privacy rights of other students.
The court concluded that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex—should be interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as a Department of Education letter suggested in 2015. The ruling allows a lawsuit brought by a transgender student to proceed.
The case involves a biological girl who identifies as a boy. The court’s majority explains it this way: “G.G.’s birth-assigned sex, or so-called ‘biological sex,’” is female, but G.G.’s gender identity is male.” Note the scare quotes around what the court calls “so-called ‘biological sex.” Biological sex, in fact, is precisely what Congress protected in 1972.
In a stinging dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer points out that “the majority’s opinion, for the first time ever, holds that a public high school may not provide separate restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex.” It’s hard to imagine that that’s what Congress was prohibiting when it enacted Title IX in 1972.
That’s why congress should pass fewer laws. They think they’re doing something good and noble but it inevitably actions have unintended consequences.
Title IX is no different. It was ostensibly passed to prohibit discrimination based on sex at schools. But now it just mandates outcomes and causes headaches for University administrators (who publicly praise the law so they don’t sound sexist). Seriously, watch this. Read this. And this. And this. Title IX is killing men’s sports thanks to “proportionality quotas” and no one seems to care.
Now a federal court has taken the law further than it’s ever gone before, declaring that the practice of having separate locker rooms and bathrooms for girls and boys violates Title IX.
I leave you with more from the dissent:
“Any new definition of sex that excludes reference to physiological differences, as the majority now attempts to introduce, is simply an unsupported reach to rationalize a desired outcome.”