Biden Endangers Young Girls, Women

Danbury Institute:

Biden Administration redefines “sex” as “gender identity” in Title IX, paving the way for males to invade female spaces

The Biden Administration has released new rules for Title IX – regulations originally designed to ensure equal access for women in public schools and sports.

The re-write flips Title IX on its head and erases protections for both men and women, boys and girls.

Here’s what is new:

  • Sex is now defined as “gender identity”
  • This means boys and men who “identify” as female will have access to locker rooms, dorms, bathrooms, and sports belonging to women and girls and that males can take scholarships meant for females.

The new Title IX rules also:

  • Infringe upon free speech rights for those who do not wish to use a person’s “preferred pronouns”
  • Eliminate due process for sexual misconduct claims, removing the ability to cross examine a witness and returning to the “single investigator model”

All considered, the new Title IX rules effectively dismantle protections for women and disrupt decades of progress in creating equal opportunity for females.

This decision from the Biden Administration is profoundly:

  • anti-woman
  • anti-truth
  • anti-science &
  • anti-equality

Christians, as people committed to truth, to God’s good design for human sexuality, gender, and identity, and to a biblical structure for justice should be vocal in opposing new Title IX rules that will endanger children, rob women of experiences, opportunity, and innocence, and subject young men to increased risk of false accusations.

Stand for truth. Reject the re-write of Title IX.

My note: This is yet another argument for confining the federal government to its proper constitutional role. Title IX refers to a federal law regarding education. If the federal government were not involved in education– as it should not be– then we would not be facing this evil effort.


7 thoughts on “Biden Endangers Young Girls, Women

  1. How does one construct a legally binding regulation, rule, or statute that legitimizes, under force of law, a fantasy which exists only in the mind of a mentally ill person?

    If I fantasize that I’m a millionaire can I get the government to pass a law requiring the bank to cash my million-dollar checks??

    The absurdity of this whole issue is that we even need to have this conversation.

    1. I agree, JayCee. Great questions.

      I mentioned in the post the cost of passing and allowing to persist unconstitutional laws and involvements at the federal level.

      But there is another dimension. The administrative state set up under these laws enact certain rules. These rules might be entirely contrary to the intent and general understanding of the laws that were passed by Congress. But Congress defers rule-making to the administrative state; and the federal judiciary often defers to the administrative state as well. Those aggrieved can sue in federal court, but it might take years for the dust to settle.

      Beside unconstitutional federal laws and involvements, we also need to tackle the nefarious administrative state.

      Of course, the Republicans’ opposition to all this mess often turns out to be lackluster.

  2. Good Christians will not accept the trans craze. Hopefully it is a passing fad that is confusing desperate young people.

    The whole attempt to force a non-binary interpretation into the Genesis creation account is anachronistic. Advocates of this view start with a modern theory of gender and then strain to impose that thinking on an ancient text. This is a common interpretive error known as eisegesis. It occurs when you start with your own idea and impose that meaning onto a text. The opposite and proper approach, however, is known as exegesis. That’s where you draw out the meaning intended by the author that is found in the text. In other words, let the text speak for itself.

    Notice that no person—Jew, Christian, atheist, or other—for the last 3,500 years ever concluded that when God made mankind “male and female,” that meant he also created people who were neither male nor female. Why? Because it’s utterly foreign to the text. This idea does not come from God or Scripture. It comes from people who rebel against God and Scripture (Rom. 1:18–23). It’s a destructive anachronism that attempts to impose an alien meaning on God’s Word.

    Finally, it’s worth pointing out that when God destroyed the earth by the flood and “rebooted” humanity, he commanded Noah to preserve his wife, his sons, and his sons’ wives. In addition, he commanded Noah, “You shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female” (Gen. 6:18–19). When God chose to remake the world, he only preserved males and females because those two exhausted the gender categories of both humans and animals. The reason behind this decision seems consistent with the reason found in the initial creation of Genesis: The gender binary was directly tied to procreation. Only a male and female (no more and no less) are needed to be fruitful and multiply.

  3. Biden Admin’s Title IX Rewrite Obliterates Female Spaces, Free Speech, And Due Process

    APRIL 19, 2024

    The Biden administration’s Department of Education unveiled a sweeping set of rules on Friday that effectively erase protections for sex-based spaces by expanding the Title IX prohibition against sex discrimination to include “gender identity” — a term that’s never mentioned in the original law.

    A majority of Americans agree that males who claim to identify otherwise should not be allowed to infiltrate girls’ and women’s sports teams. As of now, some 25 states have laws or regulations aimed at keeping boys and men out of female-only spaces, on and off the field.

    Yet, come Aug. 1, the Democrat regime’s radial redefinition of “sex-based discrimination” poses a threat to sex-based protections and welcomes males into female spaces including athletic competitions, locker rooms, and sex-specific clubs such as sororities, despite state laws.

    “The final regulations will help to ensure that all students receive appropriate support when they experience sex discrimination and that recipients’ procedures for investigating and resolving complaints of sex discrimination are fair to all involved,” the rules claim.

    The regulations do even more damage, however, such as by undoing Trump-era due process safeguards for those accused of sexual misconduct, which could include merely using accurate pronouns. They also encroach on parents’ rights and threaten academic free speech by incentivizing schools to censor students and teachers with traditional views on sex and marriage so they don’t lose federal funding.

    In the regulations, the Biden administration openly admits it relied on the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision to inform its rulemaking. In that case, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined their Democrat-nominated colleagues to expand the prohibition against employment discrimination based on “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
    A draft of the rules released in June 2022 received a “record number” of comments from Americans warning that enacting such extensive provisions and redefining terms like “sexual harassment” would bully schools into mandating the spread of radical gender ideology.

    In response to Biden’s Department of Education ignoring some 240,000 comments, “a coalition of organizations” including the Independent Women’s Forum and Independent Women’s Law Center are suing the administration, according to an IWF press release. In 2022 and 2023, those groups sent legal and policy objections to the new rule.

    “Title IX was designed to give women equal opportunities in academic settings. It forbids discrimination on the basis of ‘sex,’ which it affirms throughout the statute is binary and biological. The unlawful Omnibus Regulation re-imagines Title IX to permit the invasion of women’s spaces and the reduction of women’s rights in the name of elevating protections for ‘gender identity,’ which is contrary to the text and purpose of Title IX,” Director of Independent Women’s Law Center May Mailman said, noting the rules are illegal.

  4. Thanks for the informative comments, Fred. The first appropriately calls for a legitimate standard for interpreting the Bible. That’s entirely reasonable, but the fact that others are doing the precise opposite to prop up the LGBTQetc agenda is a reflection of their moral and spiritual corruption– indeed, their alliance with Satan.

    And your second comment reminds us that some Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices are doing the wrong thing.

    I read this morning something Elon Musk points out. Under this new rule, biological men will be able to apply for and receive women’s scholarships. I can see that happening in large numbers perhaps. Young men now see that the deck has been stacked in favor of women by all the major institutions, so they will seize whatever advantage they can.

  5. Left-Wing News Orgs Completely Ignore Bombshell Trans Report:

    April 19, 2024

    Various left-wing news organizations completely ignored the bombshell Cass Review, a report commissioned by England’s National Health Services (NHS) which found there was “weak evidence” for the efficacy of puberty blockers in minors, a Daily Caller review found.

    CNN, ABC News, Axios and Vox haven’t covered the story on their websites at all. NPR, CBS and NBC have four combined stories on the review, one from NPR, one from CBS and two from NBC.

    NPR’s one story is a re-direct to their Boston affiliate WPUR and their enterprising weekly show “On Point.”

    CBS, to their credit, published one story on the review and its consequences.

    NBC, also to their credit, posted two stories on the review, a report which strikes a dagger in the heart of arguments in favor of puberty blockers and youth transitioning.

    The review, commissioned by the U.K.’s NHS, was written by Dr. Hilary Cass, a British pediatrician who was awarded an Order of the British Empire in 2015 for her work in pediatrics.

    “For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems,” the overview continued.

    Following the report, England’s NHS banned the use of puberty blockers in children in March, except in clinical studies. Scotland’s only clinic that prescribed puberty blockers for children will also stop prescribing them to children under the age of 18, the clinic announced Thursday.

    1. Fred, it is unsurprising that much of the MSM would ignore this story. But there was also the Dutch study was released right around the same time that indicated most kids outgrow these impulses. This is, of course, media malpractice. I am glad that many people are seeking alternative news sources, because you can’t trust network news on television.

Comments are closed.