Last Tuesday, we reported on lawsuits in Idaho and Connecticut in which biological females are suing so as not to be forced to compete in sports such as track and field against biological males (aka “transgender girls”). A couple of days later, it was revealed that the Trump Administration’s Department of Education has weighed in on behalf of the real girls in Connecticut.
After a months-long investigation, the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights found that a Connecticut policy which allows biologoically male students identifying as female to participate in athletic competitions against biologically female students was in violation of Title IX.
In its 45 page letter ruling, the DOE OCR found that by permitting the participation of “certain male student-athletes” to compete in events against girls, Connecticut had denied its female student-athletes “athletic benefits and opportunities, including advancing to the finals in events, higher level competitions, awards, medals, recognition, and the possibility of greater visibility to colleges [for recruitment and scholarships] and other benefits.”
Title IX was passed in 1972 primarily to force schools to provide more athletic competition opportunities for girls. But, in display of the radical Marxism/nihilism that characterized its every action and policy, the Obama Administration “re-interpreted” the Title IX to force schools to normalize sexual orientation and gender identity, thereby forcing females to compete in sports against biological males. Advocates for the Obama Administrations radical and lawless re-interpretation of law argue that hormone therapy equalizes the playing field, but in fact the males are typically already taller and have greater muscle mass before they ever start trying to artificially lower their testosterone levels. Forcing females to compete against males perversely undercuts the purpose of Title IX as it was conceived and passed in 1972—to promote female athletics.
The DOE OCR investigation was prompted by a request from Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit advocacy group (whom our SDA religious liberty mavens sneeringly dismiss as “straight white male Christian culture warriors”) representing three female high school athletes who were affected by Connecticut’s policy. Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell are all track competitors forced to compete against male students as a result of the policy. Since 2017, two male athletes “have taken 15 women’s state championship titles” in Connecticut, titles which belonged to nine female athletes the year before.
It is good that the Trump Administration has stepped in on the side of sanity, but this will ultimately be decided in the courts. There is a federal lawsuit also pending in Connecticut, and the trial judge just recently signaled that he intends to enforce mandatory gender confusion.
During an April 16 conference call, District Judge Robert Chatigny wrist-slapped Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys for referring to the biologically male athletes who want to compete against females as "males”:
What I'm saying is you must refer to them as "transgender females" rather than as "males." Again, that's the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client's legitimate interests. Referring to these individuals as "transgender females" is consistent with science, common practice and perhaps human decency. To refer to them as "males," period, is not accurate, certainly not as accurate, and I think it's needlessly provocative. I don't think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females. That is what the case is about. This isn't a case involving males who have decided that they want to run in girls' events. This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to run in girls' events. So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as "males," understood?
Roger Brooks, the lead attorney for ADF, said the athletes' male biology — since they want to compete with biological females — is relevant to the case, that he should be allowed to use the term, and that he was "not sure he could comply" with the prohibition against the use of "males."
Notice how the Left always preempts the argument by coopting the language. No, Judge Chatingny, calling a male a “transgender female” is not “more accurate,” and it certainly is not scientific. It is societal indulgence of the whims of the mentally ill. It is no more accurate than calling an insane person Napoleon because he believes he is Napoleon. And in your courtroom, it is a coerced lie that prejudges the case before you.