Protecting Who?

For John, BLUF:  The question before us is if Title IX is to protect women in sports or if it is to allow transgender people to disrupt women's sports.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Federal judge rules in favor of Carroll ISD, blocks expanded Title IX protections

From MSN, by Reporter Elizabeth Campbell, 12 July 2024.

Here is the lede plus one:

A federal judge issued a temporary ruling Thursday in favor of the Carroll school district’s lawsuit, blocking expanded Title IX protections for LGBTQ students from taking effect in August.

In his ruling, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas said the injunction covers the Carroll district for now, but requested briefings by July 18 on possibly broadening the ruling to include other school districts.

The Judge's ruling can be found here (MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00461-O).

This garnered a number of posts on X. Here is the X Post from Brant Hthawy (@BrantHadaway), followed by the original X Post:

Never let it be forgotten that an attorney for the Biden Administration characterized girls' and women's concerns about sharing locker rooms with biological males as "niche."

This is, unfortunately, the kind of reckless arrogance that we have come to expect. Especially since the Obama Administration, the Executive Branch took license from Chevron to weaponize existing law by reinterpreting statutes for obviously political reasons.

That is not to suggest that they won't continue to do so.  But in a post-Chevron world, the Courts of the United States have no excuse for playing along.

From Political Sock (@politicalsock)

*Breaking*

Federal court in Texas eviscerates Biden’s Title IX rule which would force schools to accommodate boys (who identify as girls) into girls’ sports, showers & locker rooms.

Perhaps the most incredible part of this opinion is how the government lawyers described the concerns of school age girls who don’t wish to dress & undress with boys as “niche.”

The government literally argued that it’s wrong for a trans kid to feel uncomfortable in a locker room, but if a non-trans kid feels uncomfortable? Well, that’s a rather niche issue.  Amazing!

(The court unsurprisingly rejected this argument.)

The court also recognized the obvious - that Biden’s proposed executive re-write of Title IX impermissibly grants special privileges to kids who identify as trans.

Alliance Defending Freedom argued the case for Carroll ISD.  The Biden DOJ brought in a hotshot young lawyer who previously clerked for ACB.  Unfortunately for Biden but fortunately for us, the proposed rule is so nonsensical that no argument could save it.

Our situation is how to reconcile the idea of (some) women not wishing to find themselves in relatively close situations with people who still have the equipment of men, as opposed to recognizing the female nature of people who are going through the transition from male to femaile or visa-versa.  Perhaps we need a "third bathroom" option, so those in transition are neither threatened or threatening.

What exists currently is not acceptable.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff