Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Title IX’

6th Circuit sides with Christian prof. who refused to call trans student by preferred pronoun


Reported By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor 

Pexels.com

A three-judge federal appeals court panel has ruled in favor of an evangelical professor who was punished by Shawnee State University in Ohio for refusing to address a transgender student by the preferred pronoun. Reversing a district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against university officials, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the allegations made by philosophy professor Nicholas Meriwether suggest the university may have violated the professor’s First Amendment rights.

The case has been remanded back to the lower court for “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The district court had dismissed Meriwether’s claims related to free speech and religious protections, ruling that his way of addressing the student was not protected under the First Amendment.

“Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom,” the 6th Circuit opinion written by Trump appointee Judge Amul Thapar states.

“They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the professor’s free-speech and free-exercise claims. We see things differently and reverse.”

The ruling was celebrated by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal nonprofit devoted to cases on free speech and religious freedom that has won several Supreme Court cases in the last decade.

“This case forced us to defend what used to be a common belief — that nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job,” ADF Vice President of Appellate Advocacy and Senior Counsel John Bursch said in a statement.

We are very pleased that the 6th Circuit affirmed the constitutional right of public university professors to speak and lead discussions, even on hotly contested issues. The freedoms of speech and religion must be vigorously protected if universities are to remain places where ideas can be debated and learning can take place.”

In his lawsuit, the professor contended that the university violated his free speech rights by dictating how he should refer to students in his political philosophy class in 2018 to avoid offending a trans-identified student.

The transgender student got belligerent and threatened to see to it that Meriwether, a member of the Presbyterian Church of America, was fired. Meriwether feels it would violate his religious beliefs if he referred to a transgender student by biologically inaccurate pronouns and titles.

After a complaint was raised with the school administration, a superior advised Meriwether to refer to all students by their last names and eliminate all sex-based references in class.

Meriwether objected to the superior’s proposal and proposed a solution in which he would only refer to the transgender student by their last name while continuing to refer to other students with their proper titles and last names. Initially, Meriwether’s superior agreed to that arrangement.

But later, Meriwether was told that the student didn’t like being the only one in the class called by only their last name with no title. The student threatened to file a Title IX lawsuit. It was then that Meriwether was told that he would violate the university’s nondiscrimination policy if he did not either begin calling the transgender student by the preferred title or simply refer to all students by their last names only.

Meriwether was told that he could face a suspension or possible dismissal if he did not change the way he addressed the transgender student in the class.

As the student continued to complain, Meriwether faced a university Title IX investigation. In the summer of 2018, Meriwether was given a formal warning and accused of creating a “hostile environment” for the student. The warning was reflected in Meriwether’s personnel file.

“For starters, the Title IX investigator interviewed just four witnesses, including Meriwether and Doe,” the 6th Circuit ruling states. “She did not interview a single non-transgender student in any of Meriwether’s classes, nor did she ask Meriwether to recommend any potential witnesses. Indeed, except for Meriwether and Doe, not a single witness testified about any interactions between the two. Even so, the Title IX officer concluded that Meriwether ‘created a hostile environment.’”

“Under the university’s policies, a hostile environment exists only when ‘there is harassing conduct that limits, interferes with or denies educational benefits or opportunities, from both a subjective (the complainant’s) and an objective (reasonable person’s) viewpoint,’” the ruling continues.

“But the Title IX report does not explain why declining to use a student’s preferred pronouns constitutes harassment.”

Biden Wars Against Biological Sex And Due Process With Two New Executive Orders


MARCH 9, 2021 By 

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/biden-wars-against-biological-sex-and-due-process-with-two-new-executive-orders-2650991940.html/

Days after corporate media outlets said Joe Biden is “rolling back the culture war,” the president continued his war on biological sex and due process on Monday with the introduction of two executive orders that seek to dismantle Trump-era protections in the name of “advancing gender equity and equality” and promoting it as “a matter of human rights, justice, and fairness.”

Biden’s first order mandates the creation of a gender policy council, disguising issues such as promoting access to abortions and pushing gender- and race-driven agendas as a way to “advance gender equity and equality, with sensitivity to the experiences of those who suffer discrimination based on multiple factors, including membership in an underserved community.”

“We are very inclusive in our definition of gender,” council co-chair Jennifer Klein said in a White House briefing Monday. “We intend to address all sorts of discrimination and fight for equal rights for people, whether that’s LGBTQ+ people, women, girls, men.”

In addition to a commitment to fight “systemic bias and discrimination, including sexual harassment,” the council also plans to address women in the workforce, economic disparities including wage gaps, and “the caregiving needs of American families,” specifically examining “policies to advance equity for Black, indigenous and Latina women and girls of color.”

“It is, therefore, the policy of my Administration to establish and pursue a comprehensive approach to ensure that the Federal Government is working to advance equal rights and opportunities, regardless of gender or gender identity, in advancing domestic and foreign policy — including by promoting workplace diversity, fairness, and inclusion across the Federal workforce and military,” the order states.

In his second order, Biden instructs the Department of Education to review the Trump administration and former education secretary Betsy DeVos’s due process expansions on college campuses, which gave students accused of sexual misconduct a chance to receive a fair trial, investigation, and evaluation. The president hopes to reinstate at least some Obama-era policies that overhaul Title IX and potentially withhold or cut funding from schools that don’t comply with broader sexual harassment definitions and lowered evidence standards for victims, as he previously promised on the campaign trail.

“It is the policy of my Administration that all students should be guaranteed an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, which encompasses sexual violence, and including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” the order states.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Calls For Recusal After Judge Orders Attorneys To Refer To Trans Athletes As ‘Female’


Reported by | Published May 13, 2020

Selina Soule at a press conference in February 2020. | Picture from the Alliance Defending Freedom

District Court judge Robert Chatigny has ordered attorneys representing three high school girls that they must refer to the trans athletes on the other side of the case as “female,” an action which has alarmed many as demonstrative of partiality.

The case in question is a suit filed in February 2020 by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of three female high school athletes: Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell; against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC). The CIAC policy allows individuals to compete in sports on the basis of their gender identity, meaning male-to-female transgender athletes compete against biological women. Connecticut is one of 17 states which adheres so extremely to the transgender ideology.

Before the suit, the ADF also filed a complaint with the Department of Education in June 2019. The situation also led to a petition in support of the students sponsored by LifeSiteNews which currently has almost 190,000 signatures.

National Review has summarized the situation that led to the suit as follows:

“The case centers on the participation of two transgender sprinters, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, who have combined to win 15 girls indoor and outdoor championship events since 2017. The year prior to Miller and Yearwood’s participation, those titles were held by ten different girls. The three plaintiffs have competed directly against Miller and Yearwood and have lost to them in nearly every case.”

All three girls have spoken out emotionally about the personal impact the situation has had on them and others, saying that they “feel defeated before a race begins,” and are just asking for “a fair chance” for “every young woman who dreams of competing, of having her chance, of being rewarded for doing her very best.”

Selina Soule described her situation at a press conference, saying:

“Like the other track athletes standing here today, I face an impossible situation… Now, when we line up in front of our blockers and the starter calls us to get into position, we all know how the race will end. We can’t win. We’ve lived it. We’ve watched it happen… We’ve missed out on medals, on opportunities to compete. But when we’ve asked questions, we’ve been told we’re allowed to compete, but we shouldn’t expect to win.”

In a later interview, she added that “it’s just really frustrating and heartbreaking, because we all train extremely hard to shave off just fractions of a second off of our time. And these athletes can do half the amount of work that we do, and it doesn’t matter. We have no chance of winning.”

The basis of the legal case is the allegation by the plaintiffs that the CIAC’s policy is in violation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, because it disadvantages the biologically female athletes. However, according to a conference call transcript obtained by National Review, judge Robert Chatigny recently forbade the ADF’s attorneys from referring to Miller and Yearwood as “male,” and ordered the ADF to call them “female,” even though that question lies at the heart of the case. Chatigny’s statement as per the transcript:

“What I’m saying is you must refer to them as “transgender females” rather than as “males.” Again, that’s the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client’s legitimate interests. Referring to these individuals as “transgender females” is consistent with science, common practice and perhaps human decency. To refer to them as “males,” period, is not accurate, certainly not as accurate, and I think it’s needlessly provocative. I don’t think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females. That is what the case is about. This isn’t a case involving males who have decided that they want to run in girls’ events. This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to run in girls’ events. So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as “males”; understood?”

The ADF’s lead attorney, Robert Brooks, responded to this by calling out the absurdity of the order in the context of the case:

“The entire focus of the case is the fact that the CIAC policy allows individuals who are physiologically, genetically male to compete in girls’ athletics. But if I use the term “females” to describe those individuals — and we’ve said in our opening brief, we’re happy to use their preferred names, because names are not the point to the case. Gender identity is not the point of this case. The point of this case is physiology of bodies driven by chromosomes and the documented athletic advantage that comes from a male body, male hormones, and male puberty in particular. So, Your Honor, I do have a concern that I am not adequately representing my client and I’m not accurately representing their position in this case as it has to be argued before Your Honor and all the way up if I refer to these individuals as “female,” because that’s simply, when we’re talking about physiology, that’s not accurate, at least in the belief of my clients.”

Later on in the conversation, Chatigny responded:

“So if you feel strongly that you and your clients have a right to refer to these individuals as “males” and that you therefore do not want to comply with my order, then that’s unfortunate. But I’ll give you some time to think about it and you can let me know if it’s a problem. If it is, gosh, maybe we’ll need to do something. I don’t want to bully you, but at the same time, I don’t want you to be bullying anybody else. Maybe you might need to take an application to the Court of Appeals. I don’t know. But I certainly don’t want to put civility at risk in this case.”

In response, on Saturday the ADF’s legal team filed a motion for Chatigny to recuse himself, calling his order “legally unprecedented” and stating that “a disinterested observer would reasonably believe that the Court’s order and comments have destroyed the appearance of impartiality.”

Under AG Bill Bar, the Trump Justice Department has taken an interest in the case, filing a statement of interest this March and stating that the CIAC is in violation of Title IX, as well as referring to the transgender athletes as “biologically male.”

Stories like this will only become increasingly common if conservatives do not effectively push back. Perhaps between the ADF’s able legal team and the Trump administration’s support, this will be one case that stems the tide.

Obama Administration Makes Desperate Play To Save Transgender Bathrooms


waving flagAuthored by Photo of Kevin Daley Kevin Daley / Legal Affairs Reporter / 01/09/2017

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/09/obama-administration-makes-desperate-play-to-save-transgender-bathrooms/

The U.S. Department of Justice has asked a federal appeals court to overturn a judge’s ruling that suspended enforcement of the administration’s order allowing transgender students and workers to use the bathroom of their choice. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, blocked enforcement of the order in August.more

Lawyers for the administration asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out O’Connor’s ruling, arguing the courts do not have the power to review the government’s order. They also argue O’Connor’s ruling was too broad, as it applied to the entire country, instead of the states challenging the order.

The administration sent guidance to school districts across the country in May, advising them to allow trans students to use the bathroom consistent with their gender identity. “A school’s failure to treat students consistent with their gender identity may create or contribute to a hostile environment in violation of Title IX,” the letter said, in reference to the federal law banning gender discrimination in education. (RELATED: With Just Days Left, Obama Admin. Asks SCOTUS To Defend Gun Control)get-over-it

The agencies argued that the guidelines they issued only reflect their interpretation of Title IX, and are not orders bearing the full force of law. They further contend the guidelines were issued because of ambiguities in Title IX, since the law does not address how a school should accommodate a transgender student. As a consequence, they argued the court must defer to their interpretation of the law, since a court may not overturn an agency’s interpretation so long as it is “reasonable.”Leftist Propagandist

A coalition of a dozen states, led by Texas, accused the agencies of playing a “regulatory shell game” by issuing the guidelines by means of regulatory “dark matter,” a deluge of agency directives, notices, memoranda, guidance documents, and even blog posts that effectively create new policy without congressional legislation or Administrative Procedure Act (APA) protocols.

The states claim that this strategy allows agencies to evade review by the courts and achieve their policy objectives — because the guidance stems from so-called “dark matter,” it technically lacks the force of law and therefore cannot be reviewed by the courts. Nonetheless, districts that do not abide by the guidance are targeted for punishment by the agencies, ensuring district compliance with the new agency “rules.”

BuzzFeed News has the full filing.

A similar matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

bathroom-protest-poster-640x480-1

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/09/obama-administration-makes-desperate-play-to-save-transgender-bathrooms/#ixzz4VOdowqvp

Meet The Moms Fighting the Government Over Their Children’s Bathroom Privacy


waving flagReported by Kelsey Harkness / / May 23, 2016

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A group of North Carolina parents are joining forces to fight the Obama administration over its policy that forces public schools to allow transgender students into restrooms, showers, and locker rooms that are opposite from their biological sex.

“It’s not safe for my daughter,” Tammy Covil, a mother from Wilmington, N.C. told The Daily Signal.

The parents, part of a nonprofit called North Carolinians for Privacy, allege in a lawsuit filed May 10 against the Department of Justice and the Department of Education that the federal government is forcing them to choose between their children’s privacy and educational future.

“This is tantamount to extortion,” said Donica Hudson, a mother of three from Charlotte, N.C., “to threaten to take away our public funding, for education no less, if we don’t allow them to come in and jeopardize the safety and privacy of our children.”

The lawsuit comes in response to the Justice Department threatening to revoke federal funding from North Carolina’s public school system if it does not comply with the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational institution that receives government funding.

Watch the video to hear from two mothers, and read more about the lawsuit below;

moms

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Decree Appears To Violate Multiple Federal Laws


waving flagAuthored by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson May 14, 2016

The Obama Administration has done it again.  In an effort to strip school children of their modesty and morals, Obama has issued new instructions governing use of rest rooms, locker rooms, and showers in every government-funded school in the country.  And, in predictably lawless fashion, Obama has violated not one, but two federal laws.  First, he took a 1972 law, Title IX, which was designed to prevent sex discrimination in education, and says that as of today, the word “sex” in the statute does not mean the “sex” you were born with.  It means whatever “gender” you feel like on a given day.  And, if that was not bad enough, the manner in which the Obama Administration acted was to legislate by letter, not just usurping legislative power, but Obama violating another federal law — the Administrative Procedures Act.Picture2

Purporting to act according to what are known as official “good guidance” practices, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education issued a transgender “good guidance” letter, dated May 13, 2016.  Such a “good guidance” letter can only be issued if it does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered agencies are complying with their legal obligations.

However, like a newly enacted statute or promulgation of a new regulation, the May 13 good guidance letter includes list of new terms, never previously adopted by Congress or the Administration.  Not only that, but the letter contains rules governing the interpretation of those new legal terms.  For example, the letter defines “gender identity” to be “an individual’s internal sense of gender,” but then forbids the use of any objective standard – such as “medical diagnosis or treatment” — to verify any individual claim.   One’s gender identity is, thus, established solely by a person’s subjective claim.  And that claim can change from day to day.  Keys taken

Additionally, the good guidance letter indicates that the rules governing “sex segregated activities and facilities” are not the same.  As for restroom and locker use, “transgender students “must have access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity,” but with respect to “athletics,” gender identity is not the sole determinant of access.  That is, for athletics, a boy who feels he should be a ‘transgender girl” could be excluded from the girl’s basketball team, but not put out of the girl’s locker room.   What did you say 05.jpg

None of these examples merely “provides information and examples” of existing regulations — which is all that guidance letters may do lawfully.  This letter presents brand new interpretations of the word “sex” and new applications of new terms.  And, they are binding.  The guidance letter reads:  “The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for the purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations.  This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.”More Liberal Gibberish

According to the federal government’s own rules for Agency Good Guidance Practices, guidance letters may not be used to establish “new policy positions that the agency treats as binding. Rather, the government agency must apply with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements.”  OMB Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices at 3.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has observed that such guidance letters can be abusive, for under them:  “Law is made, without notice and comment, without public participation, and without publication in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations.” Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000).  That is not law — it is “fiat.”  Picture3

Moreover, the DOJ and DOE guidance letter misleads.  Masquerading as a “Dear Colleague” letter, the two departments act as if they are just co-workers with the nation’s college presidents and university provosts, school superintendants and principals — laboring together “to make educational programs and activities safe, and inclusive for all students.”  In fact, however, this “dear colleague” letter represents a threat, not an invitation.  If it were collegial, it would have been penned and signed only by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, the federal co-worker.  Instead, the letter is also signed by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney for Civil Rights in the Department of Justice — the federal enforcer.Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Both signers pretend that the newly hatched transgender student policy is not worthy of public debate and decision by the people’s elected representatives in Congress.  Rather, it is a done deal. It is time for the people to call on their elected state officials and representatives to fight for their rights not to be governed by two leftist unelected bureaucrats.  Now, the only question is whether the supposedly sovereign states will cave to federal threats, and whether the federal courts will look the other way, as they have done all too frequently in the past.pure socialism

Just Tuesday, we filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit case of G.G. v. County of Gloucester.  This brief was filed for Public Advocate of the United States, the United States Justice Foundation, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.  Our brief was in support of an effort to have the Fourth Circuit reconsider its decision upholding the Obama Administration’s order that the boys’ restrooms in Gloucester County, Virginia schools be opened to girls, and, by the logic of the decision, would open the girls’ restrooms to boys.  One would have thought that the Obama gang would have awaited a decision from the Fourth Circuit, but it was not to be.  The Obama Administration sees that with each turn of the calendar there are fewer and fewer days to remake America, as President Obama promised in his inaugural address.  So much damage to be done, and so little time to do it.More

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Herbert W. Titus taught Constitutional Law for 26 years, and concluded his academic career as the Founding Dean of Regent Law School.  William J. Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration.  Together they have filed over 85 briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, and dozens more in lower courts, addressing important public policy issues.  They now practice law together at William J. Olson, P.C.  They can be reached at wjo@mindspring.com  or twitter.com/Olsonlaw.

PC Trans Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Federal Court: Schools May Not Provide Separate Bathrooms Based on Biology


waving flagCommentary by Ryan T. Anderson / / April 19, 2016

(Photo: Rafael Ben-Ari/Chameleons Eye/Newscom)

The Fourth Circuit Court ruled today against a Virginia school district that sought to accommodate a transgender student while also protecting the privacy rights of other students. The federal 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.making up the law

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.Picture3

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.AMEN

Indeed, the court’s ruling goes against human history, practice, and common sense. Niemeyer explains:

This holding completely tramples on all universally accepted protections of privacy and safety that are based on the anatomical differences between the sexes. … schools would no longer be able to protect physiological privacy as between students of the opposite biological sex.

This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect. More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of Title IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result.AMEN

Niemeyer even points out that students have privacy rights to not have students of the other biological sex in their locker rooms:

Across societies and throughout history, it has been commonplace and universally accepted to separate public restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities on the basis of biological sex in order to address privacy and safety concerns arising from the biological differences between males and females. An individual has a legitimate and important interest in bodily privacy such that his or her nude or partially nude body, genitalia, and other private parts are not exposed to persons of the opposite biological sex. Indeed, courts have consistently recognized that the need for such privacy is inherent in the nature and dignity of humankind.AMEN

Nevertheless, G.G. sued the school district. Why? Because the district created a policy which says that bathroom and locker room access is primarily based on biology, while also creating accommodations for transgender students. Specifically, the policy is that only biological girls can use the girls’ room, only biological boys can use the boys’ room, and any student can use one of the three single-occupancy bathrooms, which the school created specifically to accommodate transgender students.

But even this accommodation wasn’t good enough. Hence the lawsuit and Tuesday’s ruling.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Andre Davis claims the student is at risk of “irreparable harm” if forced to use a single-occupancy bathroom. Davis says that to support the claim of “irreparable harm, G.G. submitted an affidavit to the district court describing the psychological distress he experiences when he is forced to use the single-stall restrooms.”Bull

Davis adds that “G.G. experiences daily psychological harm that puts him at risk for long-term psychological harm, and his avoidance of the restroom as a result of the Board’s policy puts him at risk for developing a urinary tract infection as he has repeatedly in the past.” Davis concludes that for G.G. to use single-occupancy restrooms “is tantamount to humiliation and a continuing mark of difference.”Leftist Propagandist

Niemeyer, however, points out that the majority relies not on the actual text, history, or legal implementation of Title IX, but on a 2015 letter from the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education: “The recent Office for Civil Rights letter, moreover, which is not law but which is the only authority on which the majority relies, states more than the majority acknowledges.” Indeed, that letter suggested that schools “offer the use of gender-neutral, individual-user facilities to any student who does not want to use shared sex-segregated facilities.”

At the end of the day, it’s hard to disagree with Niemeyer when he writes, “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.” This is simply an unaccountable agency and an activist court rewriting Title IX and remaking bathroom policy across our nation.

Bathroom, locker room, and shower facility policies that protect privacy based on biology while also accommodating transgender students make good sense. And as Niemeyer explains, they comply with the law, too: “When the school board assigned restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex, it was clearly complying precisely with the unambiguous language of Title IX and its regulations.”Romans One TRANSGENDER

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. He’s the author of the just-released book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty.” Read his research.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama admin: Transgender boys must be allowed to shower with girls at school


waving flagBy Ben Bowles on November 4, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/11/04/obama-administration-transgender-boys-must-be-allowed-to-shower-with-girls-at-school

Obama girls locker roomWhen it rains it pours. This morning Howard Portnoy wrote about a landmark referendum vote in Houston to repeal that city’s LGBT-friendly Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, or HERO.

Now comes word that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has ordered a taxpayer-funded school district in Palatine, Ill., to allow a male transgender student who dresses like a girl and otherwise identifies as female to use the girls locker room and shower on school premises.

Eric Owens of the Daily Caller writes:

The Department of Education has given the school district one month to let the student use the girls locker room. If the district does not capitulate, it risks losing federal funding.

President Barack Obama’s Department of Education — which manifestly is not vested with judicial powers — has taken to applying Title IX, a comprehensive 1972 federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, to transgender cases.

Megyn Kelly of Fox News Channel did an illuminating segment on this ruling, a video clip of which follows:

transgender

The school attempted to accommodate the student, setting up a separate dressing area for him that would allow girls the privacy they deserve, but the teen, backed by the ACLU, refused to accept “halfway measures.”Picture1

The Chicago Tribune.quotes John Knight, director of the LGBT and AIDS Project at ACLU of Illinois, as saying, “Showering in a different place is ‘blatant discrimination,’” adding:

It’s one thing to say to all the girls, ‘You can choose if you want some extra privacy,’ but it’s another thing to say, ‘You, and you alone, must use them.’ That sends a pretty strong signal to her that she’s not accepted and the district does not see her as girl.More Evidence

On Monday, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights said it agreed with Knight’s assessment, writing in a letter:

Student A has not only received an unequal opportunity to benefit from the District’s educational program, but has also experienced an ongoing sense of isolation and ostracism throughout her high school enrollment at the school.squeeze into mold

I can imagine that people who find this decision intrusive and appalling will raise hypothetical questions like “Would Obama be OK with his daughters showering next to biologically male teens?” Something tells me his answer would be yes. That doesn’t mean, of course, he should have the final say on whether it’s OK for other parents or their daughters.

AMEN In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: