Debunking the Title IX Lie

Written By RPR Founder

If you believe male and female students are lawfully required to share private spaces, you’ve been had. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) manipulated the general public and gave a green light to transgender experimentation when it offensively misinterpreted Title IX.

Within the “Scope of Title IX,” the OCR claims:

A recipient institution that receives Department funds must operate its education program and activity in a nondiscriminatory manner free of discrimination based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Some key issue areas in which recipients have Title IX obligations are: recruitment, admissions, and counseling; financial assistance; athletics; sex-based harassment, which encompasses sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence … [and] treatment of LGBTQI+ students …

Bold and underlined portions are not original Title IX language. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has not ruled that males and females must legally share private facilities on government or public property. Thus, we have no precedent for K-12 or higher education institutions to invoke such a dangerous and perverted practice.

“Gender-neutral” spaces are unlawful.

ORIGINAL INTENT OF TITLE IX

Until recently, all instances of Title IX only mention discrimination based on sex — the biblical, biological, and binary reality that debunks “gender identity.” Before the OCR published its misinterpretation in June 2022, the Department of Education’s (DOE) overview of the law agreed that Title IX “prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal assistance.” However, when the worst possible precedent was set, the OCR bypassed Congress and the High Court to include transgender language on its national website.

Gross negligence from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals resulted in an unprecedented ruling:

A policy that allows transgender students to use school bathrooms and locker facilities that match their self-identified gender in the same manner that cisgender students utilize those facilities does not infringe on the Fourteenth Amendment privacy or parental rights … The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action challenging an Oregon public school district’s Student Safety Plan as violating the Constitution and numerous other laws … The panel held that there is no Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy to avoid all risk of intimate exposure to or by a transgender person … The panel stated that just because Title IX authorizes sex-segregated facilities does not mean they are required …

No serious judge, parent, or law-abiding citizen would interpret “education program or activity” to mean bathrooms and showers, especially when Title IX uses language such as “students of both sexes” (indicating there are only two and they should be segregated). Title IX legislation also does not distinguish between sex and “gender identity” or sex and “gender expression” — these are made-up terms that lack scientific or logical meaning. “Androgyny” or “transvestism” is now “transgenderism,” a status attributed to the rebellious and the mentally ill.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BEING BORN IN THE WRONG BODY

History tells us Title IX was signed into law in 1972 by President Richard Nixon, eight years before the Grove City College v. Bell case. This lawsuit involved the university’s refusal to file Title IX documentation in compliance with the DOE. On the basis that some students received federal grant funds, the college was forced to follow Title IX regulations despite having zero instances of “gender-based discrimination” on campus.

In 1984, SCOTUS ruled that Title IX requirements do not apply across the entire institution, but to the designated program that utilizes funding (e.g. If federal grants were awarded to students enrolled in a chemistry program, only the chemistry department was subject to Title IX law in the case of those students). However, in 1988, the passing of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 granted that “program or activity” meant “all operations” of an educational institution when federal funds are provided to “any part” of that institution. Still, this language does not imply that males and females should be forced to share private spaces.

 

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (2020)

This botched SCOTUS ruling on an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case is ground zero for the OCR’s erroneous revision of Title IX. Bostock v. Clayton County was the landmark indictment of several employers who fired workers for identifying as “homosexual” or “transgender.” The lawsuit appeared to be a legitimate example of discrimination based on Title VII (7) — not Title IX (9).

Unfortunately, at first glance, it appears the Court interpreted biological sex to include sexual orientation. However, I’m an amateur when it comes to case law analysis. I recommend reading the transcript and judging for yourself.

Nevertheless, the Court also stated that it did not intend to render judgment on gender-neutral spaces:

Under Title VII, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual ‘because of such individual’s sex’ … As to Title VII itself, the Court dismisses questions about bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.

Yet, in the same commentary, the Court also said:

Under the Court’s decision, however, transgender persons will be able to argue that they are entitled to use a bathroom or locker room that is reserved for persons of the sex with which they identify … The Court provides no clue why a transgender person’s claim to such bathroom or locker room access might not succeed.

For clarification, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act informs the basis for equal-opportunity employment in the case of pregnancy, compensation, age, sex, disabilities, and genetic disposition. Those of us in our right mind know that Bostock is not a redress of Title IX law, especially since the Judicial Branch has no power to draft or rewrite legislation. Regardless, every transgender activist understood the assignment.

DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS

Title IX has not changed. The Legislative Branch has not amended Title IX law. The Judicial Branch has not rendered any ruling respecting “gender identity” as a protected class under the Education Amendments of 1972. Forcing males and females to share private spaces on school grounds is not the law of the land. Nevertheless, pro-transgender judges, lobbyists, legislators, administrators, social workers, counselors, coaches, teachers, and activists are patiently and simultaneously performing surgery on the minds of the masses. They have quotas to meet and truth is the only thing standing in their way.

This biblical, biological, binary reality does not change

In 2023, SCOTUS sidestepped the Fourth Circuit case of a West Virginia school district that sought to keep males out of female sports (the original intent of Title IX!). Needless to say, incorrect pronouns — exchanging “her” for “him” and “she” for “he” — are used throughout the case text. In January 2024, the New York Post reported that SCOTUS declined an appeal from the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville after the Seventh Circuit previously upheld pro-transgender policies in the same district.

In the case of Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, the Fourth Circuit ruled that this Virginia school district discriminated against a former student who entered the education system as female but began identifying as male in her first year of high school. Although the district temporarily allowed her to use male facilities (until complaints arose), the district refused to change the student’s gender and pronouns on her educational record. In an attempt to act in accordance with the original intent of Title IX, the district suffered consequences for rescinding its transgender practices.

One small success occurred when an 11th Circuit Court in Florida ruled in line with Title IX’s original intent and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case text states:

This appeal requires us to determine whether separating the use of male and female bathrooms in public schools based on a student’s biological sex violates (1) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment … and (2) Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 … We hold that it does not — separating school bathrooms based on biological sex passes constitutional muster and comports with Title IX.

IN CONCLUSION

There’s no end in sight for the battle of Title IX interpretations. Truly, the DOE and Executive Branch will bypass the Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch altogether if possible. In a 2023 rule proposal to the Biden Administration, the DOE said:

[We believe] that the benefits associated with the proposed regulation — providing a standard to clarify Title IX obligations for recipients that adopt or apply sex-related eligibility criteria and protecting students’ equal opportunity to participate on male and female teams consistent with Title IX — far outweigh the costs.

In this context, “costs” refers to the taxpayer fallout should the proposal succeed. Cost is not addressed from the physical, psychological, or emotional perspective of females who would be forced to give up their competitive advantage and privacy to accommodate mentally ill males.

Whether parents know it or not, the aforementioned corrupt court rulings provide enough confusion, ignorance, and fear for government schools to push transgenderism in nearly every jurisdiction. Parents Defending Education published a list of nearly 19,000 U.S. schools with active policies “openly [stating] that district personnel can or should keep a student’s transgender status hidden from parents.”

If Title IX is reinterpreted to include “gender identity” as a protected status, there will be an increase in sex-related violence against women and girls on and off school grounds. Consequently, those who identify as transgender will also be at risk for harm when invading private spaces of the same or opposite sex. Should judgments from the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits culminate in a SCOTUS ruling against the original intent of Title IX law, it will be the end of student safety and parental rights as we know it.

August 2024 Update:

On April 19, 2024, the DOE announced on its website a “Final Rule” concerning Title IX. According to the DOE press release:

“The final regulations protect against all sex-based harassment and discrimination…The final rule protects all students and employees from all sex discrimination prohibited under Title IX, including restoring and strengthening full protection from sexual violence and other sex-based harassment … And the rule protects against discrimination based on sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics.”

Essentially, this translates to liberal school districts crafting sports and bathroom policies that put female student populations at risk when males who identify as female enter their private spaces. Furthermore, corrupt circuit courts will either set new precedents or uphold faulty interpretations of Title IX (as with the Bostock case). The DOE links to these references:

As of May 2024, the leading states that filed lawsuits against the Biden administration include Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Alabama, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina. An essay from Law & Liberty says:

“These highly partisan regulations essentially reissue the Obama administration’s attempts to mandate a parallel justice system for adjudicating campus peer sexual misconduct, as well as other policies that redefined ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity.’ These earlier attempts were quickly repealed by the Trump administration but set a precedent for unprecedented executive action…

The legal difficulties in the new regulations include the redefinition of ‘sex’ and ‘sex discrimination’ to include gender identity and sexual orientation and the expansion of ‘sex-based harassment’ to include ‘subjective’ judgment. The guidelines also reduce the requirement that misconduct be ‘severe and pervasive’ to be considered sexual harassment, now stating that the actions be either ‘severe or pervasive.”

The parent group Moms for Liberty filed a lawsuit that won a preliminary injunction “prohibiting the DOE from enforcing these changes in several states and at the schools attended by the children of members of Moms for Liberty.” The group anticipates the Supreme Court will have to render a final decision on the constitutionality of these Title IX rules.

As of August 1, 2024, the new Title IX regulations are in effect.

RPR Founder

I founded Restore Parental Rights© with a mission to empower everyday citizens in their academic communities. I believe everyone who cares about the welfare of our nation should be involved in the lives of children.

To learn more about me, read my personal blog.

https://www.restoreparentalrights.org/about
Previous

Wolves in Teachers’ Clothes
Next

On a Mission to Serve Arizona Families