Category: Gender Agenda

Democratic-Appointed Judges Highly Critical of New Title IX Regulation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 27, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Democratic-Appointed Judges Highly Critical of New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / August 27, 2024 – On April 19, the U.S. Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX regulation (1). Media accounts have generally classified supporters of the rule as “liberal,” while opponents of the policy categorized as “conservative.” (2) But subsequent judicial rulings have cast doubt on this convenient stereotype.

Over the last three months, 10 lawsuits have been filed against the controversial policy. In response, circuit courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court have handed down a total of 12 decisions. Eleven out of the 12 opinions have imposed a temporary injunction on the rule. (3)

One of the most unexpected aspects of the decisions is the fact that many judges appointed by Democratic lawmakers have been highly critical of the policy. This fact is revealed in two decisions: the August 16 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, three of whose members were named by Democratic presidents; and the July 24 decision by District Court Judge Rodney Sippel, nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1997:

Supreme Court: In their August 16 decision, Justice Sotomayor, with the concurrence of Justices Kagan and Jackson (along with Justice Gorsuch, nominated by a Republican president) authored this stunning rebuke of the Department of Education document (4):

“Every Member of the Court agrees respondents are entitled to interim relief as to three provisions of that Rule: 34 CFR §106.10 (2023) (defining sex discrimination), §106.31(a)(2) (prohibiting schools from preventing individuals from accessing certain sex-separated spaces consistent with their gender identity), and §106.2’s definition of hostile environment harassment.”

Their statement expressed a categorical disapproval of the new regulation’s plan to:

Redefine sex to include “gender identity.”
Allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms designated for members of the opposite sex.
Create a new definition of “hostile environment harassment” which would have the effect of chilling free speech and negating Supreme Court precedent.

Circuit Court Judge Sippel: On May 7, the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota filed their complaint against the Department of Education (5). Eleven weeks later, Judge Rodney Sippel of the Eastern District of Missouri issued his opinion. His 56-page decision expressed concerns about the same three issues enumerated by the Supreme Court, but went far beyond that. The Sippel ruling also expressed doubts about:

Irreparable Injury: “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
Overly Broad Scope: “Damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children, however, even where these comments target differences in gender.”
Spending Clause: “Since Title IX was enacted pursuant to Congress’s authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution…the Supreme Court ‘insists that Congress speak with a clear voice’ when imposing conditions on the receipt of federal funds,”
Statutory Authority: Judge Sippel rebuked the Department of Education for exceeding its “statutory authority” a total of 10 times in his decision.
Arbitrary and Capricious: The Judge repeatedly criticized the Title IX regulation for being “arbitrary and capricious.”

At the end, Democratic-appointed Judge Sippel penned this stunning conclusion: “After due consideration of all the foregoing authorities in light of the aforementioned differences between the two statutes, Bostock’s express disavowal to bathrooms or locker rooms or other statutory schemes, and in the absence of controlling authority, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have met their preliminary burden of demonstrating a fair chance of prevailing on their argument that Bostock should not apply to Title IX, and that the Department exceeded its statutory authority and/or acted contrary to law in redefining ‘on the basis of sex’ for purposes of Title IX.”

Following the 12 decisions, the Title IX policy has been frozen in the 26 states of LA, MS, MT, ID, TN, KY, OH, IN, VA, WV, KS, AK, UT, WY, TX, AR, MO, OA, NE, ND, SD, AL, FL, GA, SC, and OK, as well as in thousands of schools in 45 states attended by children of Moms for Liberty members and by members of the Young America’s Foundation (6).

Given the bipartisan legal and public (7) opposition to the Title IX regulation, and given its high implementation costs, governors and school superintendents in the remaining 24 states should consider instructing their schools to not implement the moribund Title IX regulation.

Links:

Department of Education Due Process Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Unanimous: Supreme Court Justices Voice Opposition to Three Major Title IX Provisions

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date August 21, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Unanimous: Supreme Court Justices Voice Opposition to Three Major Title IX Provisions

WASHINGTON / August 22, 2024 – In a stunning move, all nine Supreme Court justices expressed their opposition to three key provisions in the new Title IX regulation (1). In its August 16 decision in support of the appellate court rulings to block enforcement of the new rule, the nine Justices expressed their unanimous disapproval of the new regulation’s plan to:

Redefine sex to include “gender identity.”
Allow transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms designated for members of the opposite sex.
Create a new, overly broad definition of “hostile environment harassment” (the Title IX regulation brazenly seeks to negate the Supreme Court’s definition of “sexual harassment,” as delineated in its landmark Davis v. Monroe decision (2)).

The SCOTUS decision affirmatively states, “Every Member of the Court agrees respondents are entitled to interim relief as to three provisions of that Rule: 34 CFR §106.10 (2023) (defining sex discrimination), §106.31(a)(2) (prohibiting schools from preventing individuals from accessing certain sex-separated spaces consistent with their gender identity), and §106.2’s definition of hostile environment harassment.”

The opinion comes on the heels of a string of defeats for the Biden Administration’s effort to revamp the Title IX law, enacted in 1972 to ban sex discrimination in schools. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the Biden Administration had lost in 7 out of 8 district court decisions, and lost in 3 out of 3 appellate court opinions (3).

As a result, the Title IX policy has been blocked in the states of LA, MS, MT, ID, TN, KY, OH, IN, VA, WV, KS, AK, UT, WY, TX, AR, MO, OA, NE, ND, SD, AL, FL, GA, SC, and OK, as well as in thousands of schools in 45 states attended by children of Moms for Liberty members and by members of the Young America’s Foundation (4). As a result, the 2020 Title IX regulation still remains in effect for those states and schools.

In recent months, the tide has turned against Marxist-inspired transgender ideology. These developments include growing scientific skepticism, opposition in public opinion polls, state-level laws (5), and hostility expressed by political candidates (6).

In addition, SAVE recently established a Citizen Watchdog program to monitor school compliance with the recent judicial Title IX decisions (7).

The Supreme Court decision applies only to the preliminary injunctions against the Title IX regulations, so its August 16 ruling will not be the last word on the subject. But the unanimity of opposition to three key regulatory provisions lends credence to critics of the controversial policy.

In the words of commentator Aaron Flanigan, “Whether or not they realize it now, American parents are standing on the precipice of one of the most far-reaching, extremist, and dangerous transformations of the education system in American history.” (8)

Links:

Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Schools Urged to Delay Implementation of Title IX Rule Until Legal Challenges are Resolved

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 28, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Schools Urged to Delay Implementation of Title IX Rule Until Legal Challenges are Resolved

WASHINGTON / July 29, 2024 – The Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX rule on April 19, with an effective date of August 1. (1) The regulation was immediately challenged by numerous groups. Given that the lawsuits and other challenges will not be resolved by August 1, SAVE urges all schools receiving federal assistance to defer implementation of the sweeping policy.

Following is a summary of the lawsuits against the Title IX regulation:

Litigation: To date, 10 lawsuits have been filed by state Attorneys General and other groups. In six of those complaints, judges have issued decisions. In every case, the judge imposed a temporary injunction on the rule, citing the “arbitrary and capricious” nature of the regulation. Currently, bans on the regulation are in place in 21 states: LA, MS, MT, ID, TN, KY, OH, IN, VA, WV, KS, AK, UT, WY, TX. AR, MO, IA, NE, ND, and SD (2).

Appellate Decisions: Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals for both the Fifth Circuit (3) and the Sixth Circuit (4) denied appeals of the Department of Education to stay the decisions of the trial courts.

Nationwide Injunction: In his July 11 ruling for Texas, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk noted he is considering extending his injunction to cover all 50 states in the nation (5).

Other state-level efforts are underway to overturn the regulation:

Candidate Opposition: Over 100 state political candidates around the country have signed a pledge to oppose the changes contemplated under the new Title IX regulation (6).

Statutes: To date, numerous states have enacted legislation that contradict key provisions of the Title IX regulation (7). For example, 13 states have passed laws designed to assure due process on college campuses (8).

Directives: Numerous governors and state superintendents of education have instructed their schools to disregard the rule (9).

Other efforts to eliminate the Title IX regulation include:

Title IX Network: A coalition of 232 organizations has been working for two years to oppose the regulation at the local, state, and national levels (10).

Congressional Review Act: Resolutions to block the regulation have been introduced in both the U.S. Senate (11) and House (12). On July 11, the Resolution passed in the House of Representatives.

New Presidential Administration: On January 20, 2025 a new person will be sworn in as the 46^th president of the United States. Donald Trump is currently leading Kamala Harris in the Electoral College, 312 to 226. (13) If elected, Trump has promised that “on day one,” he will terminate the Biden mandate (14).

Never before in history has the Judicial Branch, Legislative Branch, and the American public coalesced in such a coordinated and sustained manner to oppose a controversial federal regulation. Schools that receive federal education monies are urged to postpone all implementation of the regulation until the legal issues are resolved.

If the Department of Education attempts to enforce the new policy, the affected school or individual should seek an injunction which, based on the many judicial decisions issued to date, likely would be granted. Schools should not waste resources on the futility of implementing a deeply unpopular Title IX regulation.

Links:

Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Federal Judge Blocks Sweeping Title IX Regulation in Four States, Stunning LGBTQ Advocates

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 16, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Federal Judge Blocks Sweeping Title IX Regulation in Four States, Stunning LGBTQ Advocates

WASHINGTON / June 17, 2024 – This past Thursday federal Judge Terry Doughty handed down a temporary injunction against the new Title IX regulation (1). The sweeping federal regulation, issued on April 19, makes numerous changes to the original Title IX law, including expanding the definition of sex to include “gender identity” (2).

Noting that Title IX “was written and intended to protect biological women from discrimination,” Louisiana District Judge Doughty reasoned, “Such purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics. Enacting the changes in the Final Rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX: protecting biological females from discrimination.”

The judge also ruled the new regulation violates the free speech clause of the Constitution, the Spending Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Doughty’s ruling applies to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

The transformative Title IX regulation is encountering strong opposition across the country (3). To date, a total of nine lawsuits have been filed to block the controversial Title IX policy (4):

States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First (5)
States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (6)
States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Louisiana Department of Education, Rapides Parish School Board, and 17 Louisiana School Districts (7)

States of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (8)
States of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, et al. (9)
State of Texas and Two UT-Austin Professors (10)
State of Oklahoma (11)
Oklahoma Department of Education (12)
Carroll Independent School District (Texas) (13)

Decisions on many of these complaints are expected during the upcoming month.

In addition, 68 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have co-sponsored H.J. Resolution 165 that seeks to block the controversial regulation (14).

Advocates for LGBTQ rights were furious over the judge’s decision. Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson charged, “Today’s decision prioritizes anti-LGBTQ+ hate over the safety and well-being of students in the state. This is MAGA theatrics with the dangerous goal of weaving discrimination into law.” (15)

Earlier this month the Pew Research Center reported on the results of a national survey that shows 65% of registered voters believe whether a person is a man or woman is based on their biological sex at birth. In 2017, only 53% of voters believed that sex was biologically based (16).

Links:

Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

SAVE Stands in Support of Resolution 165 That Seeks to Block the New Title IX Regulation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 12, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

SAVE Stands in Support of Resolution 165 That Seeks to Block the New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / June 12, 2024 – The Department of Education recently issued a new Title IX regulation that redefines sex to include “gender identity” (1). In response, 68 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are co-sponsoring a resolution that seeks to block the new regulation. H.J. Resolution 165 states simply:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance’ (89 Fed. Reg. 33474; published April 29, 2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.” (2)

In support of the Resolution, Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx charged, “The Biden administration’s final rule hacks Title IX into pieces and expunges decades of progress for women and girls across the nation. This is a clear and present threat, and one that cannot go unaddressed.” (3)

To date, nine lawsuits have been filed to block the controversial Title IX policy (4):

States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and the Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First (5)
States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (6)
States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Louisiana Department of Education, Rapides Parish School Board, and 17 Louisiana School Districts (7)

States of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (8)
States of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, et al. (9)
State of Texas and Two UT-Austin Professors (10)
State of Oklahoma (11)
Oklahoma Department of Education (12)
Carroll Independent School District (Texas) (13)

The most comprehensive lawsuit, from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina (5), charges the new regulation not only promotes harmful gender transitioning among underage students, but also impairs free speech, parental rights, bathroom privacy, women’s sports, and due process for the falsely accused.

The new Title IX policy affirms the Marxist vision to bring about a “sexless” society. In the words of Shulamith Firestone, the end goal of feminist revolution must be the elimination of the “sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken” (14).

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE – strongly supports H.J. Resolution 165.

Links:

Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

‘See you in court, @POTUS:’ Conservatives and Liberals Livid Over New Title IX Rule

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 23, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘See you in court, @POTUS:’ Conservatives and Liberals Livid Over New Title IX Rule

WASHINGTON / April 23, 2024 – The U.S. Department of Education released on April 19 its long-awaited Title IX regulation (1). If allowed to stand, the effects of the controversial rule will be numerous, long-lasting, and severe.

Most profoundly, the policy changes the definition of sex to include “gender identity,” allowing biological males to freely participate in women’s sports (2). And Reason fumed over the rule’s harmful effects on campus due process: “the new rules allow students to be found guilty of assaulting a classmate without ever seeing the full evidence against them” (3).

In short order, conservative-leaning organizations issued statements condemning the new policy, including the Heritage Foundation (4), Defense of Freedom Institute (5), and the National Association of Scholars (6).

Less anticipated were statements by liberal organizations that also were critical of the regulation:

Gays Against Groomers: The liberal-leaning Gays Against Groomers thundered, “By replacing sex with gender identity, all prior protections put in place will be wiped away. It is a dystopian nightmare, masqueraded as progress” (7).

ACLU: Four years ago, the ACLU filed a lawsuit opposing the 2020 Title IX regulation that was designed to curb campus Kangaroo Courts (8). But last week the ACLU did an apparent about-face, criticizing several due process provisions of the new regulation, such as its acceptance of the single-investigator, “judge, jury, and executioner” model, and its removal of the requirement for a live hearing (9).

Twitter readers expressed their anger and disappointment, as well (10):

Wendy and Lucy: “The destruction of female sports. Horrifying!”
KLee: “So you’re now representing men instead of women? Are you going to be officially changing the name of your organization as well?”
Don’tBeAJagooff: “I cannot believe you think this is a good thing. This is awful for females.”
Diogenes Sarcastica: “Thanks for f*cking up women’s sports!”

Release of the new regulation does not signal an end to the Title IX controversy. The Independent Women’s Forum promptly announced that it is “preparing to sue the Biden administration to enjoin this unlawful action” (11). And the Alliance Defending Freedom issued this blunt challenge: “See you in court, @POTUS.” (12)

Links:

Feminism Gender Agenda Press Release

Does Wokeism Pose a Mental Health Threat to Women?

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 19, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Does Wokeism Pose a Mental Health Threat to Women?

WASHINGTON / April 19, 2024 – The ongoing mental health crisis among young, liberal women has been well documented (1). Last month, a study from Finland revealed women were five times more likely than men to embrace “woke” attitudes, and these women were more prone to report lower levels of mental well-being such as anxiety and depression (2).

Three recent incidents illustrate how liberal, well-educated females indulge in wokeism. Their actions include betrayal of the oath of office, outright dishonesty, and hyper-partisanship:

1. Ketanji Brown Jackson: Supreme Court Justice Jackson revealed during a recent media censorship case that her biggest concern was the “First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways” (3).

Apparently she was unaware that the entire point of the First Amendment is to do exactly that – to restrain the power of the government from intruding into the lives of private citizens. Judge Jackson’s comments appeared to contradict her oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” (4).

Combined with her previous “I’m not a biologist” remark, Judge Jackson’s “hamstringing” comment raises questions about her objectivity and fitness to serve on the High Court.

2. Sharon Malone, MD: Doctor Malone was the guest for an April 4 interview on National Public Radio to discuss woman’s health. Echoing the woman-as-victim narrative, she made this dubious claim: “it wasn’t until 1993 that women were even included in clinical trials” (5).

But the facts reveal Malone’s statement to be an outright fabrication:

As early as 1979, 96% of all NIH clinical trials included women (6).
An analysis of enrollees in National Cancer Center clinical trials in 1989 reported 57% female participation (7).
Overall, “women routinely participated in clinical trials, and in numbers that are more than proportionate to the number of women in the overall population,” according to a third review (8).

3. Katherine Maher: Endowed with a gold-plated resume, Maher was hired in March to serve as the chief executive of National Public Radio. Maher has issued numerous partisan tweets that condemn “white complicity,” the “system of oppression founded on treating people’s ancestors as private property,” and much more (9).

But in a moment of lucidity, Katherine Maher admitted to indulging in her “hysteric white woman” voice (10). Maher’s candid admission of hysteria echoes the above-mentioned study from Finland.

In her April 3 column, Canadian Amy Hamm offers this insight for the current rash of female wokeism: “Perhaps it is not a tendril of our good nature that makes women ‘woker’ than men, but merely a reflection of our darker, malicious side” (11).

And commentator Janice Fiamengo floats this controversial idea: “If a significant subset of women are incapable of acting in their own best interests, let alone in those of society as a whole—particularly the best interests of (female) children—is it not time to rethink the alleged equal capacity of women to lead our societies?” (12)

Links:

Department of Education Feminism Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Lawsuits by Detransitioners Skyrocket as Transgender Movement Retreats

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 15, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Lawsuits by Detransitioners Skyrocket as Transgender Movement Retreats

WASHINGTON / April 15, 2024 – The transgender movement is facing setbacks on multiple fronts (1). Last week a comprehensive review of gender identity services for youth in the United Kingdom concluded (2):

“The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated.”
Thousands of young people received life-altering treatments with “no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”
“Social justice” ideology is driving medical decision-making, and “the toxicity of the debate” has created an environment “where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views.”

In 2007 Boston Children’s Hospital opened the first pediatric gender clinic in the United States. The hospital boasted its Gender Multispecialty Service has “expanded our program to welcome patients from ages 3 to 25.” During the following years, trans medicine became a major money-maker, as nearly 9,000 transgender surgeries were performed annually in the United States (3) with a market value of $1.9 billion in 2021 (4).

Medical treatments for gender dysphoria typically include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone treatments, and eventually surgery on the genitals and breasts. The Mayo Clinic claims on its website that puberty blockers “don’t cause permanent physical changes. Instead, they pause puberty.” (5)

But numerous research studies point to the opposite conclusion (6). A recent study, for example, reveals that puberty blockers for boys cause mild to severe sex gland atrophy, resulting in long-term fertility problems (7).

The effects of gender treatments are profound. Surgically transitioned persons are unable to have sexual relations, or to father or bear children. Their mental health often deteriorates. Their pain is psychological, social, and physical.

Sometimes these persons come to realize that they made a grave mistake and decide to detransition.

On May 10, 2022, the first detransitioner lawsuit was filed, against the Permanente Medical Group in California (8). Seven months later, Camille Kiefel filed a similar lawsuit in Oregon against the Quest Center for Integrative Health, which had performed a double mastectomy on her (9). Now, the number of detransitioner and wrongful death lawsuits has increased eight-fold, according to Transition Justice (10).

These lawsuits allege a breach of the standard of care, including failing to perform a mental health evaluation, lack of informed consent, and battery.

One of the leading law firms in this area, Campbell Miller Payne (11), reports that medical providers are beginning to shut down their gender modification services, such as Children’s Hospital of Colorado and Washington University in St. Louis.

But inexplicably, the Biden Department of Education is moving ahead with its plan to finalize a new Title IX regulation that would change the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” (12)

Marxist Shulamith Firestone once revealed that the goal of the feminist revolution is the elimination of the “sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.” (13)

Future historians will marvel how a neo-Marxist ideology ignited a global gender hysteria, giving rise to the most egregious examples of medical malpractice in recorded history.

Links:

Campus Department of Education False Allegations Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

30 Groups Call on Biden Administration to Abandon ‘Disastrous’ Title IX Regulation

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date April 7, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

30 Groups Call on Biden Administration to Abandon ‘Disastrous’ Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / April 8, 2024 – The Washington Post recently reported that the U.S. Department of Education is again postponing its plan to issue a new Title IX regulation that would govern the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports (1).

The Department of Education originally had promised to release the final Title IX sports regulation in October. “Folks close to Biden have made the political decision to not move on the athletics [regulation] pre-election,” the article reported. The proposed sports regulation would be a companion to a larger Title IX regulation that seeks to redefine sex to include “gender identity.”

Title IX is the federal law that was originally enacted to curb sex discrimination in schools. critics Ironically, the new Title IX regulation would worsen sex discrimination against men who have been falsely accused of sexual misconduct (2) and against women who participate in athletics. Last month, advocates for women’s sports met with Department of Education officials and criticized the proposed Title IX changes for its “disastrous legal effects.” (3)

Sixteen public opinion polls have revealed strong public opposition to the proposed Title IX changes (4).

The proposed Title IX changes have been challenged by federal lawmakers, attorneys general, (5), and governors (6). Even presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. has expressed his opposition to the participation of biological males in women’s sports (7).

The Title IX Network was established in 2022 to oppose the new Title IX regulation, and currently has 221 national, state, and local organizations from around the country (8).

In response to the most recent delay, the following 30 members of the Title IX Network issued statements calling on the Department of Education to abandon its unlawful, far-reaching, and dangerous plan to revamp the Title IX law:

AFA Action: “The Biden Administration has an evil agenda that is using unsafe, unfair, and illegal rulemaking to hurt girls and women. But at least they are pausing this rule, primarily because they are afraid of the American voters and a Congressional Review Act challenge.”
Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization: “The Washington Post’s account of what the Biden administration has in store for us should he get elected for a second term is a chilling assault, on not only the female sex but of morality in general.”
American Association of Christian Schools: “The Biden Administration has played politics with its extreme Title IX rewrite, redefining the word ‘sex’ and putting women in danger. This new delay of the rule until after the election reveals a craven awareness that the American people have rejected its radical gender agenda.”
American Association of Evangelicals: “The Biden Administration’s assault on Title IX is inhumane and anti-science engineering that harms women, men, families and nations.”
American Life & Liberty PAC: “The American Life & Liberty PAC stands 100% against the current DOE policy proposals. They are the antithesis of protecting the rights of children, ensuring children do not face dangerous medical interventions, and protecting children from longstanding harm.”
American Values: “The American people overwhelmingly oppose the Biden Administration’s efforts to allow male athletes to cheat our daughters out of their hopes and dreams. Outraged parents and grandparents will make their voices heard in November.”
Americans for Limited Government: “Americans for Limited Government opposes Joe Biden’s Title IX regulation as it represents a dangerous and unconstitutional federal mandate on local school districts to sexualize children.”
Association of Mature American Citizens and AMAC Action: “Every individual is worthy. But a small group of persons facing an identity crisis around gender should not eclipse the majority of women and girls who compete in sports as biological females.”
Center for Equal Opportunity: “Delaying the release of the final Biden Title IX sports regulations is election-year politics that signals a desire to sidestep overwhelming public opposition to allowing transexual athletes’ participation in women’s sports.”
Child Protection League: “The proposed rule turns Title IX on its head, erasing the safety, dignity, privacy, and opportunities of women and girls. It must be dumped.“
Citizens for Renewing America: “The Biden administration continues to trample on the rights of women through its attempts to redefine biological reality.”
Concerned Women for America LAC: “Delay means nothing when you are dealing with the lives of young women. Biden’s destructive changes to Title IX will mandate a new form of discrimination against female athletes.”
ConservativeHQ.com: “The election year delay of this dangerous and outrageous proposal shows that Biden administration officials recognize how unpopular it is. But make no mistake, it will be back the day after the election, if Joe Biden wins.”
Global Strategic Alliance: “We call on the Biden Administration to abandon this ‘disastrous’ Title IX regulation.”
Greenwich Patriots: “It’s bad enough that girls are getting physically harmed by boys competing in girls’ sports. Biden’s plan to enshrine the right for boys to play in girls’ sports is outrageous and would effectively spell the end of women’s sports.”
Independent Women’s Network, Denver Chapter: “Title IX was born to protect female athletes and give them opportunities in sports. Instead of protecting those rights, the Biden Administration looks to rewrite them so they have a better chance to win an election, allowing girls to be excluded and injured.”
Independent Women’s Network, North Dakota Chapter: “Camouflaged hate speech toward females in the new Title-IX revisions should not be ignored, as discrimination against females is cloaked with words like ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ and ‘inclusion.’”
Katartismos Global: “The Title IX proposed sports regulation is but part of broader, disastrous Title IX regulation by the Biden Administration that attempts to defend the lie that is known as gender ‘transitioning.’”
Law Offices of Philip A. Byler: “The saying, ‘If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ applies here. The DeVos regulations fixed the worst parts of campus sexual misconduct proceedings, but the Biden regulations would un-fix it and make due process just some words.”
Less Government: “Men are men. Women are women. And bureaucrats who pretend otherwise are corrupt idiots.”
Mission America: “The Biden administration has apparently seen the writing on the wall, that the unlawful and high-risk Title IX changes are overwhelmingly unpopular and will carry a substantial political cost.”
Palm Beach Freedom Institute: “As the recent revelations about administration policy toward gender and sports reveal, Title IX is an abomination and must be repealed.”
SAVE: “The proposed Title IX regulation would be an unmitigated disaster for children, schools, families, women’s sports, free speech, and falsely accused male students.”
Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity: “The feelings of boys-who-imagine-they-are-girls must not be prioritized over the rights and safety of biological girls.”
60 Plus Association: “President Biden can prove he’s a man, biologically speaking, if he lets stand Title IX, and what it has meant for female athletes during its 50-year history!”
Tea Party Patriots Action: “The Biden administration’s Title IX rules are an insult to female athletes throughout the country. They should be competing against their peers, not against males.”
Texas Values: “We have one message for the Biden Administration on its rewrite of Title IX: Don’t Mess with Texas female athletes or kids.”
Title IX for All: “If the Biden administration does not abandon its attempt to roll back critical due process protections, accused students will again be systematically subjected to life-altering sham proceedings.”
Utah Citizens for the Constitution: “A study published in the Journal of Urology (September 2021) found that suicidal tendencies double after transgender surgery. Such procedures on minors must be stopped.”
Utah Eagle Forum: “For 50 years Title IX has protected women’s sports. The Biden administration’s proposed Title IX changes would eliminate all women’s sports.”

Email Secretary Miguel Cardona at the Department of Education: alejandro.reyes@ed.gov

Citations:

Feminism Gender Agenda

Financing a gender justice infrastructure

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 25, 2024

Financing a Gender Justice Infrastructure to Counter Anti-Gender Ideology and Anti-Rights Movements

SAVE

March 25, 2024

On March 19, 2024 the Ford Foundation, along with Global Philanthropy Project and the Institute of Development Studies, sponsored a parallel event to the 68th session of UN Commission on the Status of Women conference in New York City. Titled “Financing a Gender Justice Infrastructure to Counter Anti-Gender Ideology and Anti-Rights Movements,” the event consisted of six presentations.

During the presentations, presenters and participants repeatedly stated, “I am full of rage” and “I’m raging.” Summaries of these presentations are shown below.

Argentinian President Milei’s Anti-Feminism Speech

Presenter: Angelika Arutyunova-

Co-Founder, CEECCNA Collaborative Fund

President Milei’s speech against feminism stirred considerable controversy within feminist circles. Many feminists argue that Milei’s rhetoric undermines decades of progress in gender equality and women’s rights. They view feminism not as a threat but as a crucial movement advocating for the rights and empowerment of women and marginalized genders.

Milei’s stance is seen as reflective of deeply ingrained patriarchal attitudes that seek to maintain traditional power structures and perpetuate gender-based discrimination. Feminists emphasize the importance of challenging such rhetoric and continuing to push for policies and social norms that promote gender equality and justice.

President Nayib Bukele’s Banishment of Gender Ideology

Presenter: Angelika Arutyunova

Co-Founder, CEECCNA Collaborative Fund

El Salvador president Bukele’s efforts to banish gender ideology in his country have sparked significant concern among feminists and LGBTQ+ rights advocates. They argue that Bukele’s actions not only erase the identities and experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals, but also perpetuate harmful stereotypes and discrimination. Feminists believe that gender ideology serves as a framework for understanding and addressing the complexities of gender, including issues of discrimination, violence, and social inequality.

By dismissing gender ideology, Bukele’s government risks exacerbating existing disparities and marginalizing already vulnerable communities. Feminists advocate for policies that recognize and affirm diverse gender identities and experiences, promoting inclusivity and equality for all individuals.

Collaboration between Feminists and Transsexuals

Presenter: Chivuli Ukwimi – Feminists and Transexuals Union

Deputy Director, International Trans Fund (ITF)

The discussion on collaboration between feminists and transsexuals underscored the importance of solidarity and mutual support within the broader gender justice movement. Feminists recognize the intersecting oppressions faced by transgender and gender non-conforming individuals and emphasize the need for inclusive activism that addresses the diverse needs and experiences of all gender minorities. Building alliances between feminists and transsexuals involves advocating for policies and initiatives that advance the rights and well-being of transgender individuals, including access to healthcare, legal recognition, and protection from discrimination.

Feminists aim to create spaces that are welcoming and affirming of all gender identities, fostering a sense of belonging and collective resistance against gender-based oppression.

Study on Anti-Gender Campaigns in Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Senegal

Presenter: Caroline Kouassiaman

Executive Director – Initiative Sankofa d’Afrique de l’Ouest (ISDAO)

The presenter’s study sheds light on the detrimental impact of anti-gender campaigns in West Africa, highlighting the challenges faced by gender activists in combating misinformation and promoting gender equality. Feminists view these campaigns as a deliberate attempt to undermine progress towards gender justice by spreading fear and misinformation and reinforcing traditional gender norms. They emphasize the importance of countering such narratives with evidence-based education and advocacy efforts that challenge stereotypes and promote gender equality as a fundamental human right.

Feminists work to amplify the voices of local activists and communities affected by anti-gender campaigns, supporting grassroots initiatives that empower individuals to challenge harmful ideologies and advocate for gender-inclusive policies and practices.

Role of Technology in Gender Activism

Presenter: Jac sm Kee

Co-funder and Cartographer, Numun Fund

The discussion on the role of technology highlighted both its potential as a tool for advancing gender equality and its pitfalls, including issues of harassment and the spread of misinformation. Feminists recognize the power of technology in amplifying marginalized voices, organizing grassroots movements, and raising awareness about gender-based issues. However, they also acknowledge the need to address digital harassment and online abuse, which disproportionately target women and gender minorities.

Feminists advocate for platforms and policies that promote online safety and combat cyberbullying, recognizing the interconnectedness of digital and offline forms of violence against women. They work to harness the transformative potential of technology while challenging its negative impacts on gender equality and women’s rights.

Considerations on Funding for UN Women and Advocacy Groups

Presenters: All above persons

The discussion surrounding potential cuts in funding for UN Women and related advocacy groups reflects broader shifts in philanthropic priorities and funding allocations. Feminists expressed concern about the implications of reduced funding for gender equality initiatives, particularly at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing gender disparities and heightened the need for targeted interventions. They emphasized the importance of sustained investment in organizations that work to advance gender equality, including UN Women, grassroots women’s groups, and feminist-led initiatives.

Feminists advocate for donor strategies that prioritize long-term sustainability, flexibility, and responsiveness to the evolving needs of women and gender minorities worldwide, ensuring that resources are directed towards effective, rights-based approaches to achieving gender justice.

During the two-hour event, there were no questions posed, only expressions of support for the topics under discussion and the prevailing atmosphere of anger.