Posted on May 4, 2016
WORLD | Families sue government for redefining Title IX | Lynde Langdon | May 4, 2016
2.31K
35
27
10
10
0
I was glad to read that 51 Chicago families are suing the Federal Government for redefining Title IX. Illinois parents say the Obama administration had no legal right to equate gender identity with biological sex. "The lawsuit filed today describes the effect the policy has had on some of the female students at the high school: “The girls are afraid of having to attend to their personal needs, especially during a time when their body is undergoing often embarrassing changes as they transition from childhood to adulthood, in a locker room or restroom with a male present.”
As far as I am concerned this is a case where the Emperor has no clothes and He wants us to believe he has the fanciest clothes imaginable. The 4thn circuit court which ruled in favor of a "transgender" student the court acknowledged in its ruling that it was only upholding the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX, something another administration or Congress could change.
“Families sue government for redefining Title IX
Fifty-one families from the Chicago suburbs are saying “enough” to the Obama administration forcing schools to let boys and girls who identify as the opposite sex use the restrooms of their choice.
The families, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Thomas More Society, filed a suit against the U.S. Department of Education in federal court today. The lawsuit claims the department is “continuing to trample students’ privacy and other constitutional and statutory rights” in its enforcement of Title IX, a law that prohibits gender discrimination in federally funded schools.
In April 2014, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) ruled Title IX protections cover discrimination on the basis of gender identity as well as biological sex. Since then, schools around the country have faced threats of having their federal funding revoked if they don’t meet the demands of transgender students.
One such case arose in Palatine, Ill., a suburb of Chicago, between Township High School District 211 and a biologically male teen who lives as a girl. The district calls the student by a female name and pronouns, allows the student to play on girls’ athletic teams, and lets the student use female bathrooms. But the student, who has not been identified, could not access the girls’ locker rooms and had to change clothes for PE class and other activities in a separate bathroom.
The school district put up privacy curtains in the girls’ locker room and offered to let transgender students change there if they undressed behind the curtains. But that was not enough for the OCR, which said the privacy curtains were discriminatory unless all girls were required to use them. The OCR threatened to revoke $6 million in federal funding from the district, which relented and allowed the student open access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms.
The lawsuit filed today describes the effect the policy has had on some of the female students at the high school: “The girls are afraid of having to attend to their most personal needs, especially during a time when their body is undergoing often embarrassing changes as they transition from childhood to adulthood, in a locker room or restroom with a male present.”
The suit describes how girls are avoid using the restroom, wear their gym clothes under their school clothes to avoid undressing, and run to the opposite end of the school during passing periods to try to find empty restrooms.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said the problems stem from the OCR’s redefining “sex” to include gender identity, something it had no authority to do.
Recently in Virginia, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a transgender student in a similar case. But the court acknowledged in its ruling that it was only upholding the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX, something another administration or Congress could change.
“Not only may a subsequent administration choose to implement a different policy, but Congress may also, of course, revise Title IX explicitly to prohibit or authorize the course charted here by the department regarding the use of restrooms by transgender students,” Judge Henry Floyd wrote. The argument of the families in Palatine, though, is that the Obama administration never had the right to rewrite Title IX in the first place, so the court should declare its actions void.
“No government agency can unilaterally redefine the meaning of a federal law to serve its own political ends,” ADF legal counsel Matt Sharp said. “The Department of Education is exceeding what it is legally and constitutionally allowed to do. In fact, at least five other federal and state courts have rejected the DOE’s interpretation of Title IX.”
Just hours after the Illinois families filed their suit, the U.S. Justice Department cited the new Title IX interpretation in a warning to North Carolina over its recently enacted restroom law.
The law, known as HB2, protects public establishments from being forced to allow biological males and females to have access to restrooms and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify. Lawmakers passed HB2 in response to a city of Charlotte ordinance that made sexuality and gender preference protected classes under its civil rights laws.
Federal officials have given the state until Monday to pledge not to enforce the law. If Gov. Pat McCrory refuses, North Carolina could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal school funding.
The Justice Department also claims the law violates Civil Right Act protections against workplace discrimination.
“The state is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees and both you, in your official capacity, and the state are engaging in a pattern or practice of resistance” of their rights, the letter said."
COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. MAJ David Wallace SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas CMSgt Mark Schubert SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT SGM Mikel Dawson most SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Sgt Joe LaBranche SSgt (Join to see) SGT Forrest Stewart SGT Robert Hawks SGT (Join to see) GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad SSG Ed Mikus SGT John " Mac " McConnell SP5 Mark Kuzinski SSgt Robert Marx SrA Christopher Wright
As far as I am concerned this is a case where the Emperor has no clothes and He wants us to believe he has the fanciest clothes imaginable. The 4thn circuit court which ruled in favor of a "transgender" student the court acknowledged in its ruling that it was only upholding the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX, something another administration or Congress could change.
“Families sue government for redefining Title IX
Fifty-one families from the Chicago suburbs are saying “enough” to the Obama administration forcing schools to let boys and girls who identify as the opposite sex use the restrooms of their choice.
The families, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Thomas More Society, filed a suit against the U.S. Department of Education in federal court today. The lawsuit claims the department is “continuing to trample students’ privacy and other constitutional and statutory rights” in its enforcement of Title IX, a law that prohibits gender discrimination in federally funded schools.
In April 2014, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) ruled Title IX protections cover discrimination on the basis of gender identity as well as biological sex. Since then, schools around the country have faced threats of having their federal funding revoked if they don’t meet the demands of transgender students.
One such case arose in Palatine, Ill., a suburb of Chicago, between Township High School District 211 and a biologically male teen who lives as a girl. The district calls the student by a female name and pronouns, allows the student to play on girls’ athletic teams, and lets the student use female bathrooms. But the student, who has not been identified, could not access the girls’ locker rooms and had to change clothes for PE class and other activities in a separate bathroom.
The school district put up privacy curtains in the girls’ locker room and offered to let transgender students change there if they undressed behind the curtains. But that was not enough for the OCR, which said the privacy curtains were discriminatory unless all girls were required to use them. The OCR threatened to revoke $6 million in federal funding from the district, which relented and allowed the student open access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms.
The lawsuit filed today describes the effect the policy has had on some of the female students at the high school: “The girls are afraid of having to attend to their most personal needs, especially during a time when their body is undergoing often embarrassing changes as they transition from childhood to adulthood, in a locker room or restroom with a male present.”
The suit describes how girls are avoid using the restroom, wear their gym clothes under their school clothes to avoid undressing, and run to the opposite end of the school during passing periods to try to find empty restrooms.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said the problems stem from the OCR’s redefining “sex” to include gender identity, something it had no authority to do.
Recently in Virginia, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a transgender student in a similar case. But the court acknowledged in its ruling that it was only upholding the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX, something another administration or Congress could change.
“Not only may a subsequent administration choose to implement a different policy, but Congress may also, of course, revise Title IX explicitly to prohibit or authorize the course charted here by the department regarding the use of restrooms by transgender students,” Judge Henry Floyd wrote. The argument of the families in Palatine, though, is that the Obama administration never had the right to rewrite Title IX in the first place, so the court should declare its actions void.
“No government agency can unilaterally redefine the meaning of a federal law to serve its own political ends,” ADF legal counsel Matt Sharp said. “The Department of Education is exceeding what it is legally and constitutionally allowed to do. In fact, at least five other federal and state courts have rejected the DOE’s interpretation of Title IX.”
Just hours after the Illinois families filed their suit, the U.S. Justice Department cited the new Title IX interpretation in a warning to North Carolina over its recently enacted restroom law.
The law, known as HB2, protects public establishments from being forced to allow biological males and females to have access to restrooms and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify. Lawmakers passed HB2 in response to a city of Charlotte ordinance that made sexuality and gender preference protected classes under its civil rights laws.
Federal officials have given the state until Monday to pledge not to enforce the law. If Gov. Pat McCrory refuses, North Carolina could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal school funding.
The Justice Department also claims the law violates Civil Right Act protections against workplace discrimination.
“The state is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees and both you, in your official capacity, and the state are engaging in a pattern or practice of resistance” of their rights, the letter said."
COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. MAJ David Wallace SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas CMSgt Mark Schubert SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT SGM Mikel Dawson most SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Sgt Joe LaBranche SSgt (Join to see) SGT Forrest Stewart SGT Robert Hawks SGT (Join to see) GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad SSG Ed Mikus SGT John " Mac " McConnell SP5 Mark Kuzinski SSgt Robert Marx SrA Christopher Wright
WORLD | Families sue government for redefining Title IX | Lynde Langdon | May 4, 2016
Posted from worldmag.com
Faith
Family
Law
Common sense
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 7
8
8
0
Very good although it is a shame to resort to the courts over every disagreement. The thing overlooked often over "transgendered" use of restroom facilities is the problem that the other occupants will have with it. My daughter who is in high school would never use the facilities knowing some anatomic boy is in the facilities ahead or behind of her. This has nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice but everything with body issues and modesty.
(8)
(0)
4
4
0
Why does the government feel the need to be involved in every aspect of our lives. It use to be that if you saw a male follow a female into a womens bathroom you knew something might be up. Now the government wants to make it an everyday occurrence. Thanks for sharing, LTC Stephen Ford!
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Here's a question which leads me to assume this whole argument has been started purely for political reasons and that it has nothing to do with supporting the transgender community; Why did they not simply call for 100% unisex bathrooms period? After all, no one can really enforce whether a person genuinely identifies as male or female. Instead, this whole thing has been presented as a "progressive" move to help the transgender community feel included.
I've seen and read countless articles and memes claiming the science behind the transgender mindset, or even how we've already been doing it in port-a-johns (not the same thing by the way, in any stretch of the imagination). The fact is men's and women's bathrooms have been divided for specific reasons, which become obsolete when you allow those who claim to be (or identify as) a man or woman to enter.
To argue this is about discrimination, also makes no sense. No one is trying to keep transgender people or even homosexual people out of our bathrooms (or put them into a completely different room of their own for that matter). I have seen transgender people in the men's room in the past, and while I admit it appears different or out of place, I have no right or desire to tell them to leave. Hell, just the other day in a men's locker room I saw a somewhat older man walking back and forth through the locker room with a towel hung around his neck instead of wrapped around his waist. He would walk back and forth to the shower, scale, and even the sink... Naked. While I find this behavior strange, I also ignore it.
There is no doubt that few transgender people are looking to gawk or assault those within the bathroom they identify with. No more than how most people would not mean to do the same if presented with only unisex bathrooms. To suggest that transgender people do not have the same faults as some men and women do, is dishonest. So again I say this is purely political and that if those supporting this really wanted to have a leg to stand on, they would have requested a move to 100% unisex bathrooms instead. Instead this is meant to create more divisiveness and paint political parties as discriminatory or intolerant. That despite their argument that they are concerned about those who will very likely abuse this rule.
I've seen and read countless articles and memes claiming the science behind the transgender mindset, or even how we've already been doing it in port-a-johns (not the same thing by the way, in any stretch of the imagination). The fact is men's and women's bathrooms have been divided for specific reasons, which become obsolete when you allow those who claim to be (or identify as) a man or woman to enter.
To argue this is about discrimination, also makes no sense. No one is trying to keep transgender people or even homosexual people out of our bathrooms (or put them into a completely different room of their own for that matter). I have seen transgender people in the men's room in the past, and while I admit it appears different or out of place, I have no right or desire to tell them to leave. Hell, just the other day in a men's locker room I saw a somewhat older man walking back and forth through the locker room with a towel hung around his neck instead of wrapped around his waist. He would walk back and forth to the shower, scale, and even the sink... Naked. While I find this behavior strange, I also ignore it.
There is no doubt that few transgender people are looking to gawk or assault those within the bathroom they identify with. No more than how most people would not mean to do the same if presented with only unisex bathrooms. To suggest that transgender people do not have the same faults as some men and women do, is dishonest. So again I say this is purely political and that if those supporting this really wanted to have a leg to stand on, they would have requested a move to 100% unisex bathrooms instead. Instead this is meant to create more divisiveness and paint political parties as discriminatory or intolerant. That despite their argument that they are concerned about those who will very likely abuse this rule.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google