Category: Gender Agenda

AI Chatbot News American Indians Campus Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Feminism Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Death Knell Sounds on the Title IX Transgender Movement

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 25, 2025

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Death Knell Sounds on the Title IX Transgender Movement

WASHINGTON / January 27, 2025 – Following a 2021 Biden Executive Order (1), the transgender movement took root and spread across the United States. The Department of Education set out to draft a new Title IX regulation that would set into law the controversial notion of “gender identity.”

Public opposition to the plan soon arose (2). Specific areas of concern included gender transitioning of minors, campus due process, pronoun mandates and free speech, parental rights, and women’s sports (3).

In response, the Title IX Network was established, eventually consisting of 240 national, state, and local organizations that were united in their opposition to the proposed regulation (4). Dozens of members of Congress, state governors, and state attorneys general spoke out against to the proposal, as well (5). Some even called for the abolition of the Department of Education (6).

One hundred state lawmakers from 32 states signed a pledge to “protect schools, children, and families from the Biden Title IX rule” (7). Numerous states enacted policies designed to thwart the transgender movement. For example, 25 states passed laws banning the participation of men from women’s sports (8). SAVE also established a Citizen Watchdog Program designed to monitor schools at the local level (9).

Despite fierce opposition, on April 19, 2024 the Department of Education issued its Title IX regulation that changed the definition of sex to include “gender identity” and removed key due process protections for the falsely accused (10). Within weeks, nine lawsuits opposing the regulation had been filed (11).

The following developments signaled the demise of the Title IX transgender movement:

August 16, 2024: All nine Supreme Court justices issued a ruling that expressed their unanimous opposition to the Biden plan to redefine sex to include “gender identity.” (12)
December 20: The U.S. Department of Education formally withdrew the plan to enact its controversial Title IX sports rule (13).
January 9, 2025: Federal judge Danny Reeves issued a decision that struck down, across the nation, the Biden Title IX regulation (14). The Department of Education did not seek to appeal the historic ruling.
January 20: President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order stating, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” (15)

Marxist Shulamith Firestone once declared, The goal of the 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.” (16)

Once again, the illogic of Marxist ideology has been revealed.

Links:

Campus Department of Education Discrimination Due Process False Allegations Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Title IX

President Donald Trump’s Statements Pertaining to Title IX and Related Issues

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 6, 2024

President Donald Trump’s Statements Pertaining to Title IX and Related Issues

SAVE

November 6, 2024

During his recent campaign to become the 47^th president of the United States, Trump repeatedly promised to abolish the Department of Education:

“I say it all the time, I’m dying to get back to do this. We will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education,” he said earlier this month during a rally in Wisconsin. “We will drain the government education swamp and stop the abuse of your taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s youth with all sorts of things that you don’t want to have our youth hearing,” Trump said. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/20/politics/department-of-education-shut-down-trump/index.html

“It’s time,” Mr. Trump said. “Close it up. When you look at the list of countries, we’re always at the bottom [on education]. We spend more money per pupil and we’re always at the bottom of a list of 40 countries. And we should close it up and let local areas, and frankly, states, handle education.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/4/trump-plans-abolish-us-education-department-if-ele/

Trump, in an interview on X, told Elon Musk that, if elected, “I want to close up the Department of Education, move education back to the states.”
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/08/nx-s1-5103698/trump-harris-election-platforms-education-views
“On Day One, I will sign a new Executive Order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto the lives of our children,” the presumptive Republican nominee for the White House told a cheering crowd at Turning Point Action’s ‘The People’s Convention’ in the state of Michigan. https://bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-national-byo-242666.html

During Trump’s first term of office, his Department of Education implemented a new Title IX regulation in 2020 that strengthened due process protections for falsely accused students. Building on that accomplishment, Trump made a number of promises during his recent campaign that address the Biden Title IX regulation. Many of these promises were made as part of his campaign platform known as Agenda 47:

Gender Transitioning

Agenda 47:

President Trump will immediately reverse Joe Biden’s barbaric “gender-affirming care” policies, and he will sign an executive order instructing every federal agency, including the Department of Education, to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition, at any age.

President Trump will declare any hospital or healthcare provider that participates in the chemical or physical mutilation of minor youth will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare.

President Trump will also inform states and school districts that if any teacher or school official suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body, they will be faced with severe consequences—including potential civil rights violations for sex discrimination and the elimination of federal funding.

President Trump will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the United States government are male and female—and they are determined at birth.

Free Speech

“When we know the facts, and the story gets written the exact opposite of what it is, you start to lose faith in the press.” Trump promised, if re-elected, to sign an executive order “banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech” and to “fire any federal bureaucrat who engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime.” https://nypost.com/2024/09/07/us-news/trump-vows-to-bring-back-free-speech-calls-fake-news-a-threat-to-this-country/

Child Protections/Parental Rights

“First, we will cut federal funding for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto our children. We are not going to allow it to happen.” https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/da7f3c42-76b5-42c0-9beb-475d649030ae#:~:text=Here%20is%20my%20plan%20to,to%20allow%20it%20to%20happen

Women’s Sports

Agenda 47: President Trump will also make clear that Title IX prohibits men from participating in women’s sports.
Trump was asked by an audience member named Linda about how he would approach the issue of men identifying as women competing in women’s sports leagues. Trump answered, “We’re not gonna let it happen,” Trump said. “We absolutely stop it. You can’t have it. It’s a man playing in the game [against women].”

Reform of Higher Education

Trump also vowed to reform institutions of higher education. The Trump Agenda 47 promises:

“He will impose real standards on American colleges and universities, to include defending the American tradition and Western civilization, protecting free speech, eliminating wasteful administrative positions that drive up costs, removing all DEI bureaucrats, offering options for accelerated and low-cost degrees, providing meaningful job placement and career services, and implementing college entrance and exit exams to prove that students are getting their money’s worth.” https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-protecting-students-from-the-radical-left-and-marxist-maniacs-infecting-educational-institutions

Other related reforms:

Accreditation procedures
Antisemitism policies and procedures
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs
Role of police
Affordable alternatives to higher education

See: Here’s everything Trump promised regarding higher ed reform during his campaign

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

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

Email: info@saveservices.org

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: