Category: Gender Identity

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:

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

Federal Judges Sound the Death Knell on Joe Biden’s ‘Gender Identity’ Experiment

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date July 13, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Federal Judges Sound the Death Knell on Joe Biden’s ‘Gender Identity’ Experiment

WASHINGTON / July 15, 2024 – Over 50 years ago, Marxist Shulamith Firestone laid out her grand vision for gender equality: “genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.” (1) As far-fetched as her proposal might sound, activists around the world began to take up the challenge, concocting their theory of “transgenderism.”

Accordingly on his first day in office, President Biden issued an Executive Order that decreed, “All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.” (2) On April 19 of this year, the Biden Department of Education issued its final Title IX rule that expanded the meaning of sex to include “gender identity.” (3)

Response to the new policy was resoundingly negative. Numerous governors and state superintendents of education instructed their schools to ignore the rule (4). One editorial ridiculed the policy as a “repulsive attempt to erase biological truth.” (5)

Literally within days, state Attorneys General and others began to file nine lawsuits seeking to overturn the policy (6). To date, five decisions have been handed down. Remarkably, every one of decisions imposed a temporary injunction for their respective states on the “arbitrary and capricious” Title IX rule:

June 13: Judge Terry Doughty for the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho (7).
June 17: Judge Danny Reeves for Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia (8).
July 2: Judge John Broomes for Kansas, Alabama, Utah, and Wyoming, plus all schools attended by the children of Moms for Liberty and by members of the Young America’s Foundation (9).
July 11: Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk for the state of Texas. In addition, the judge noted that he is considering extending his injunction to all 50 states in the nation (10).
July 11: Judge Reed O’Connor for the Carroll Independent School District in Texas (11).

In parallel fashion, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a separate regulation in May requiring states to pay for so-called “gender affirming” treatments (12). This rule, which also relies on a bloated definition of sex to include gender identity, was met with several lawsuits as well.

On July 3, two federal judges issued injunctions against the DHHS rule. The first applied to Texas and Montana (13). More devastating to the Washington bureaucrats, the second decision blocked the DHHS rule throughout the entire nation (14).

Topping off this remarkable string of decisions, on June 28 the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine (15). In the past, the Chevron doctrine provided a legal fig leaf to the Department of Education and other federal agencies seeking to escape accountability and issue intrusive regulations.

Seldom in American jurisprudence have judges issued a series of decisions within a period of just four weeks, all with the intended effect of blocking the implementation of ill-conceived and unlawful federal regulations.

As these lawsuits continue to be litigated, the 229 organizational members of the Title IX Network will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action (16). Interested organizations that wish to join the Title IX Network should contact Robert Thompson at rthompson@saveservices.org

Links:

Department of Education Due Process Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Sexual Harassment Title IX

Arbitrary and Capricious: Federal Judge Rejects and Ridicules Dept. of Education’s Title IX Rule

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date June 19, 2024

Arbitrary and Capricious: Federal Judge Rejects and Ridicules Dept. of Education’s Title IX Rule

SAVE

June 19, 2024

In April, the Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX Rule. In response, nine separate lawsuits were filed, seeking to block the new regulation.

On June 17, Judge Danny Reeves issued a preliminary injunction for the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia. Concluding that “the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule,” the judge ordered:

The motions for a preliminary injunction/stay filed by Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia [Record No. 19] and Christian Educators Association International and A.C. [Record No. 63] are GRANTED.
The United States Department of Education and Miguel Cardona, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, along with their secretaries, directors, administrators, and employees, are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from implementing, enacting, enforcing, or taking any action in any manner to enforce the Final Rule, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474 (Apr. 29, 2024), which is scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2024.

Using the words “arbitrary and capricious” eight times, Judge Reeves did not mince words in his 93-page decision, which addressed the subjective definitions of “gender identity,” women’s sports, student privacy and safety, free speech, parental rights, and more.

These are highlights from his strongly worded opinion:

“This case concerns an attempt by the executive branch to dramatically alter the purpose and meaning of Title IX through rulemaking… the new rule contravenes the plain text of Title IX by redefining ‘sex’ to include gender identity, violates government employees’ First Amendment rights, and is the result of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking. If the new rule is allowed to take effect on August 1, 2024, all plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable harm.” – Page 1

“But then came the administrative state, lacking any real power to rewrite a law that Congress duly passed, with its bureaucratic cudgel.” – Page 8

“The Department declined to provide a specific definition of “gender identity,” but understands the term to “describe an individual’s sense of their gender, which may or may not be different from their sex assigned at birth.” – Page 10

Judge Reeves’ decision highlights the plight of a 15-year-old West Virginia girl, A.C., who reportedly “feels uncomfortable dressing and undressing in the presence of biological males.” Referring to transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson, a biological male, the judge wrote, “A.C. asserts that it is apparent that B.P.J.’s status as a biological male gives B.P.J. an advantage over A.C. and other female athletes.” – Page 14

“an agency has no authority to promulgate a regulation that ‘undoes the unambiguous language of the statute.’” – Page 16

“The Department’s new definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended….For example, the new rules provide that recipients may separate students for purposes of fraternities and sororities, but not for purposes of utilizing bathrooms.” – Page 25

“The likely consequences of the Final Rule are virtually limitless…. the Final Rule creates myriad inconsistencies with Title IX’s text and its longstanding regulations.” – Page 27

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as a sentry over one of the Nation’s most indispensable freedoms through a proclamation clear and uncompromising: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, . . . .” – Page 32

“It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto.” – Page 46

“The Department understands gender identity to describe an individual’s sense of their gender, which may or may not be different from their sex assigned at birth.” Id. But the Department’s response offers no guidance whatsoever. Arguably worse, it suggests that this term of vital importance can be subjectively defined by each and every individual based entirely upon his or her own internal sense of self.” – Page 50

“Further, the Final Rule authorizes, if not encourages, arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement pursuant to definitions of harassment that are almost entirely fact-dependent.” – Page 55

“the Final Rule’s text is vague and overbroad in a way that impermissibly chills protected speech” – Page 56

“The plaintiff-States claim that the Department has also failed to account for the impact its Final Rule will have on the constitutional right of parents to influence their children’s education. A longstanding right recognized by the Supreme Court is the right for parents to raise their own children as they see fit.” – Page 63

“But the Final Rule then specifies that schools may no longer apply the regulations’ allowance for sex-separation against males who identify as females or females who identify as males. Id. It seems obvious that the Department simply failed to consider these contradictory aspects when promulgating the Final Rule.” – Page 63

“Indeed, the Final Rule’s provisions seemingly bind administrators to treat such children “consistent with [their] gender ident[ies]” on school grounds, even if that conflicts with parental preferences. Id. at 41571. Therefore, school personnel would be forced to improperly insert themselves into constitutionally protected family affairs not only to act when gender discrimination is claimed but to “prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects.” – Page 64

“it implies that Title IX could supersede parental preferences about a child’s treatment depending on the case.” – Page 65

“The Department asserts that there is not ‘a ‘long-standing construction’ of the term ‘sex’ in Title IX to mean ‘biological sex.’  See 87 Fed. Reg. at 41537. But this argument is severely undermined by the series of congressional amendments and agency regulations since the statute’s enactment that consistently have construed ‘sex’ as a male-female binary. Indeed, past regulations from the Department are direct evidence that a definition has been in place.” – Page 67

“Nonetheless, despite society’s enduring recognition of biological differences between the sexes, as well as an individual’s basic right to bodily privacy, the Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity. This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.” – Page 75

“Ultimately, the Department’s failure to provide any concrete, contradictory data to the concerns raised by the States, parents, and educators renders it is difficult to fathom how it determined that “the benefits” of the new regulations ‘far outweigh [their] estimated costs.’… This miscalculation is underscored by the fact that officials seemingly failed to seriously account for the possibility that abolishing sex-separated facilities would likely increase the incidence of crime and deter large swaths of the public from using public accommodations altogether.” – Page 75

“It is an inescapable conclusion based on the foregoing discussion that the Department has effectively ignored the concerns of parents, teachers, and students who believe that the Final Rule endangers basic privacy and safety interests…. Rather than address the evidence provided by the plaintiff-States and others during the commenting period, the Department throws its figurative hands in the air and says, ‘too bad.’” – Page 76

“The Department predicts that recipients of federal funds will see a ten percent increase in Title IX complaints and investigations under the Final Rule.” – Page 81

“the plaintiff-States contend that the Final Rule would cause their citizens to endure a variety of irremediable harms including violations of their bodily privacy by students of the opposite sex.” – Page 87

“This regulation is arbitrary in the truest sense of the word. As explained above, the Department has failed to demonstrate why recipients are allowed to inflict more than de minimis harm in some situations but not in others when there is no meaningful difference (e.g., living facilities versus showers).” – Page 90

“Each subsection in which these provisions appear contains a severability clause that provides: ‘If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.’ 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.9; 106.16; 106.48. The severability clause has little impact on the Court’s analysis because the impermissible definition of ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ in 34 C.F.R. § 106.10 permeates the remaining regulations.” – Page 90

“the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule that is set to go into effect on August 1, 2024. At bottom, the Department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining “sex” to include “gender identity.” But “sex” and “gender identity” do not mean the same thing. The Department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute.” – Page 91

“A rule that compels speech and engages in such viewpoint discrimination is impermissible.” – Page 92

“Notably, the Department does not provide a sufficient explanation for leaving regulations in place that conflict with the new gender-identity mandate, nor does it meaningfully respond to commentors’ concerns regarding risks posed to student and faculty safety.” – Page 92

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:

Department of Education Gender Agenda Gender Identity Press Release Title IX

As Donald Trump Calls for Abolition of Dept. of Education, Transgender Advocates Face Major Setbacks

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date March 19, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

As Donald Trump Calls for Abolition of Dept. of Education, Transgender Advocates Face Major Setbacks

WASHINGTON / March 20, 2024 – In his recent address to the National Religious Broadcasters’ International Christian Media convention, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced his intention to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. “We’re going to end the so-called Department of Education. We might have one desk, one person, just to make sure everyone is speaking English,” Trump announced during his keynote speech (1).

Much of the controversy stems from the Department of Education’s plan to issue a new policy that redefines sex to include “gender identity.” Such a change would give a boost to controversial initiatives to allow children to change their gender without parental permission (2).

Transgender advocates have seen a series of major setbacks in the past three weeks:

Indiana Ban: On February 27, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision to allow Indiana’s SB 480 to go into effect. The law prohibits physicians from providing “Gender Affirming Medical Care” for minors (3).
WPATH Files: On March 4, leaked files from the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) revealed that the organization removed minimum-age requirements for children to start puberty blockers or undergoing sexual-modification surgeries, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along (4).
Health Plan Coverage: On March 4, a federal judge in North Dakota ruled that the Christian Employers Alliance could not be mandated to offer health insurance coverage for gender transition treatments (5).
Suicide Attempts: On March 11, a California study revealed that men who undergo a vaginoplasty procedure to become a transgender female experience an attempted suicide rate that is double their pre-procedure suicide attempt rate (6).
NCAA Lawsuit: On March 14, the Independent Council on Women’s Sports filed a highly publicized lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletics Association for allowing transgender athletes to compete against women and use female locker rooms (7).

To date, 22 states have banned gender transition treatments for minors (8): AL, AZ, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, NC, ND, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, and WV.

In support of these developments, SAVE is inviting candidates for political office to sign the “Candidate Pledge to Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan.” The Pledge states,

When elected to office, I pledge to work to assure that:

Schools and other organizations shall utilize the traditional binary definition of “sex.”
Schools shall obtain prior consent from parents for any use of gender pronouns, or gender-dysphoria counseling or treatments.
Parents shall have the right to examine and opt their children out of any school curricula dealing with sexuality and gender identity.
Schools shall only allow biological females to participate in women’s sports, enter women’s locker rooms, and use women’s bathrooms.
Schools shall adhere to Constitutional due process procedures to protect falsely accused males from Title IX complaints.
Schools and other institutions shall fully uphold Constitutional free speech guarantees.

The Candidate Pledge can be viewed online (9). To date, 68 lawmakers from 20 states have signed the statement (10). Candidates can indicate their support for the Pledge by sending a confirmatory email to: rthompson@saveservices.org

Citations:

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

National Outrage Over Biden Title IX Plan

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 27, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

National Outrage Over Biden Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / February 28, 2024 – America is witnessing a seismic shift in popular views about President Biden’s Title IX plan to expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” (1) Such a change would impose dramatic changes on women’s sports, gender transitioning, parental rights, free speech, due process, and more (2).

The following events took place during a five-day period in mid-February, revealing a historic shift in the national mood:

February 13: St. Louis Park Schools in blue-state Minneapolis agreed to allow six Somali-American families to opt out of instruction that featured “LGBTQ-affirming” books (3).
February 14: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis boldly announced, “The Biden Administration is plunging ahead with a radical re-write of Title IX, seeking to impose gender ideology on K-12 schools all across the country….In Florida, we will not abide by it.” (4)
February 17: Democrat-turned-Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced, “I don’t think somebody who is born a biological male should be competing in consequential women’s sports.” (5)

The issue that has generated the strongest public reaction is women’s sports, which are now imperiled by policies that allow biological males to compete against women.

In early February, Collegiate Charter School in Massachusetts played a basketball game against the KIPP Academy. The KIPP team had a member who was a 6-foot tall, biological male who identified as female. During the first half of the game, the male injured three of the Collegiate players, depleting the team’s roster and forcing the coach to forfeit the competition (6).

The incident went viral on social media and sparked public outrage. Retired University of North Carolina coach Sylvia Hatchell charged, “I don’t care if you had an operation or took hormones or what. Having to play against a transgender is not fair and it’s not equal.” (7)

The Collegiate Charter School incident was not the first time that a female was injured under similar circumstances.

Last November, a field hockey player for Dighton-Rehoboth Regional High School in Massachusetts had her teeth knocked out and suffered facial injuries when a Swampscott High School male player who identifies as a female hit the ball directly at her face.

In North Carolina, volleyball player Payton NcNabb suffered head and neck injuries and a concussion after a transgender player spiked the ball at her.

After USA Boxing announced it was going to admit biological males to compete against biological women, attorney Jenna Ellis accused the organization of wanting to “get women killed.” (8) Rep. Lauren Bobert (R-Colo.) denounced the scheme as “pathetic and disgusting.”

Numerous opinion polls show a strong majority of Americans opposes the Biden Gender Agenda (9). SAVE urges persons to submit testimony to the federal Office of Management and Budget to record their strong opposition to the new Title IX regulation.

Instructions how to schedule the testimony are available online: https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/

Links:

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

Sounding the Alarm: Call for Americans to Oppose Biden Title IX Plan!

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 19, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Sounding the Alarm: Call for Americans to Oppose Biden Title IX Plan!

WASHINGTON / February 20, 2024 – A new poll of 1,600 persons reveals a majority of registered voters across the political spectrum now support state laws that would require children to wait until age 18 before they can receive transgender treatments: Republicans: 73%; Independents: 71%; and Democrats: 61%. (1)

The controversy came to light last week in New Hampshire where a new record was set in the girls’ high jump competition. Maelle Jacques succeeded in jumping 5’1”, breaking the previous female record by a full inch (2). But the athletic accomplishment was overshadowed by the fact that Jacques is a biological male who now identifies as transgender.

Similar reports have become commonplace for a range of concerns related to Title IX, the federal sex discrimination law: Due process for falsely accused male students (3), gender transitioning of underage minors (4), pronoun mandates (5), campus free speech (6), and more.

The uproar springs from a controversial 2022 Department of Education proposal to change the definition of sex to include “gender identity” (7). The Title IX plan has faced strong opposition across the country:

Numerous attorneys general and federal lawmakers issued statements of opposition (8).
25 Republican governors called on the Biden administration to withdraw its proposed changes to Title IX. (9)
Nearly 60 political candidates signed a Pledge to “Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan” (10)

In addition, 23 states have banned gender transitioning among children (11), 10 states outlawed pronoun mandates (12), and 23 states enacted laws to protect women’s sports from transgender athletes (13).

On February 2, the Department of Education forwarded its controversial regulation to the federal Office for Management and Budget for final approval.

SAVE is urging the American public to speak out in strong opposition to the Biden Title IX plan. We invite you to contact the Office for Management and Budget to politely express your concerns. For details how to schedule a meeting, visit: https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/

Links:

Gender Agenda Gender Identity Media Press Release Sex Education Title IX

Public Opposition Mounts As Media Accounts Spotlight Transgender Tragedies

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 12, 2024

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Hain

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Public Opposition Mounts As Media Accounts Spotlight Transgender Tragedies

February 14, 2024 – Abandoned by her birth-mother at an early age, Jennifer Kolstad had experienced a variety of mental health problems. After she began to identify as a boy at age 13, her parents cautioned that she was too young to make such a life-altering decision. When her parents refused to approve gender-transitioning procedures, the Montana CPS forcibly removed her from the family home (1).

Most Americans favor laws that protect adult transgender persons from discriminatory policies in jobs and housing (2). But driven by federal policy (3), transgender “horror-stories” such as the Montana case are serving to bolster public opposition to these practices.

A 2021 Gallup poll found that 62% of Americans believed that transgender athletes should be allowed to play only on teams that matched their birth sex. When the same poll was repeated in 2023, the percentage of Americans supporting such bans had increased to 69%. (4)

Five other national surveys conducted in 2023 reveal consistent opposition to transgender policies:

Deseret News/HarrisX (5): 55% of respondents support banning gender hormone therapy on minors, and 61% want to prohibit surgical interventions to change a child’s sex.

Summit Ministries (6): 77% of voters believe that allowing males who identify as female to compete against biological women in college female sports has been harmful to women’s sports.

CRC Research and Parents Defending Education (7): 74% of registered voters believe that schools should not be allowed to help students change their gender identity without parental consent.

Scripps News/You Gov (8):

54% of Americans support a federal ban on transgender females competing in school athletics.
44% say they want “laws that would restrict and, or ban transgender care for minors, even with parents’ consent,” while 34% oppose such measures.

KFF/Washington Post (9):

57% of American adults believe a person’s gender is based on their biological sex at birth.
67% do not think that biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s sports competitions at the high school level.
65% don’t believe that biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s athletics in college or professionally.
77% of American adults believe it is inappropriate for teachers to discuss their transgender identities with students in kindergarten to third grade.

Since 2022, 15 national polls have been conducted on a variety of transgender-related issues, revealing a national consensus against so-called “gender affirming” policies for children and youth (10). Lawmakers who support such policies are likely to face a negative response from voters during the upcoming November elections.

Citations:

Gender Agenda Gender Identity Title IX

Public Opinion Polls Reveal Growing Public Opposition to Policies Driven by ‘Gender Agenda’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date February 12, 2024

Public Opinion Polls Reveal Growing Public Opposition to Policies Driven by ‘Gender Agenda’

SAVE

February 12, 2024. Updated in February and June, 2024.

Fifteen national polls were conducted in 2022 and 2023 to gauge public opinion about a variety of Gender Agenda issues, including parental rights, women’s sports, classroom instruction, and gender transitioning among underage children and youth.

Two polls were conducted in January, 2024:

A poll of 1,600 registered voters revealed a majority of persons across the political spectrum now support state laws that would require children to wait until age 18 before they can receive transgender treatments: Republicans: 73%; Independents: 71%; and Democrats: 61%.
A NORC poll asked 1,624 adults to weigh in on whether trans athletes of both sexes should be permitted to participate in sports leagues that correspond to their preferred gender identity instead of their biological sex. Two-thirds of the respondents said it should be permitted “never” or “in rare cases.”

All of the polls were representative of the US population.

2022 Polls

May 31 – Survey: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Parents’ Rights

Topics addressed: Parental Rights
Sample size: 1.002 people
Name of poll sponsor: Parental Rights Foundation and the Heart and Mind Strategies

June 2 – 50th Anniversary of Title IX, June 2022 – Majority of Americans and Sports Fans Think Title IX Has Been A Net Positive

Topics addressed: Title IX and Women’s Sports
Sample size: 1,121 National Adults
Name of poll sponsor: Marist Center for Sports Communication – Marist National Poll

June 6 — 63% of Americans Oppose Expanding Definition of Sex to Include ‘Gender Identity’

Topics addressed: Definition of Sex, Women’s Sports, Parental Consent, Parental Opt-Out
Sample size: 2,566 adults
Name of poll sponsor – SAVE

June 16 – Poll Says 30% of Americans Believe Transgender Women Should Play Female Sports

Topics addressed: Women’s Sports
Sample size: 1,503 people
Name of poll sponsor – Washington Post and University of Maryland

June 28 – Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues

Topics addressed: Gender Transition, Parental Rights
Sample size: 10,188 U.S. adults
Name of poll sponsor: Pew Research Center Survey

June 29 – Americans are deeply divided on transgender rights, a poll shows

Topics addressed: Women’s Sports/Gender Transitioning
Sample size:1,028 Adults 18+
Name of poll sponsor: NPR-Ipsos Poll

July 27 – Parents Defending Education Poll: 62% of voters think gender identity activists “going too far”

Topics addressed: Gender Identity, Women’s Sports
Sample size: 1,010 adults
Name of poll sponsor: Parents Defending Education

September 15: How Americans view policy proposals on transgender and gender identity issues, and where such policies exist

Topics addressed: Women’s Sports, Gender Transition
Sample size: 10,188 adults
Name of poll sponsor: Pew Research Center

2023 Polls

January 18 – Transgender Issues in Schools and States: New Poll Shows How Americans Feel

Topics addressed: Gender Transitioning/Gender Identity, Issue taught in public schools
Sample size: 1,828 people
Name of poll sponsor: Deseret News/HarrisX poll

March 6 – Poll: Nearly 80 Percent Say Women’s Sports Harmed by Allowing Transgender Competitors

Topics addressed: Women’s Sports
Sample size: 1,000 likely voters
Name of poll sponsor: Summit Ministries in partnership with McLaughlin and Associates

March 21 – Poll Says 30% of Americans Believe Transgender Women Should Play Female Sports

Topics addressed: Parental Rights, Gender Transitioning
Sample size: 1,600 registered voters
Name of poll sponsor: CRC Research and Parents Defending Education

May 3 – Scripps News poll: Americans largely support restricting trans rights

Topics addressed: Parental Rights, Women’s Sports and Gender Transitioning
Sample size: 1,000 adults
Name of poll sponsor: Scripps News/YouGov poll

May 5 – Majority of Americans believe gender determined at birth, against biological males in women’s sports: Poll

Actual poll: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/dfa015fb-e64f-4eb2-9cfd-048d9e9dc108.pdf
Topics addressed: Women’s Sports and Gender Identity
Sample size: Nationally representative sample of 515 adults who identify as trans and another 823 adults who do not identify as trans. Total – 1,338
Name of poll sponsor: KFF/Washington Post

June 12 – More Say Birth Gender Should Dictate Sports Participation

Topics addressed: Transgender Sports
Sample size: 1,011 adults
Name of poll sponsor: Gallup Poll