Minnesota Suit Raises The Other Side Of Title IX (Update)

That the guy was twerking in the girls’ locker room is funny, but the least of the problems. That high school girls were compelled to share a locker room with a biological male is one issue. That they were forced to do so because some administrators decided they were going to change everything to create their version of Utopia is another.  And this complaint, filed in federal court in the District of Minnesota, does an excellent job of spelling the issues out.

The first paragraph of the complaint provides a good overview (broken into paragraphs for readability) of the claim:

1. This case is about protecting the privacy of every student within Independent School District 706 (“Virginia School District” or “District” or “District Defendant”)—privacy that the Defendants violate each school day through their new rules and policies that radically changed the meaning of “sex” in Title IX. Defendants have unilaterally rejected the Title IX meaning of sex, which for 40 years has meant male and female: two objective, fixed, binary classes which are rooted in our human reproductive nature. In lieu of this unambiguous meaning of sex, Defendants inject a distinct and altogether different concept of gender identity which is subjectively discerned, fluid, and nonbinary.

The Department of Education and Department of Justice (“Federal Defendants”) acted without regard for statutory authority or required rule-making procedures, and created and promulgated a new ultra vires rule (“Federal Rule” or “Rule”) through the artifice of issuing “guidelines” (“Federal Guidelines” or “Guidelines”) and then enforcing those guidelines against several schools. And those enforcement actions notified all school districts nationwide that they must treat a student’s gender identity as their sex for the purpose of Title IX if they wish to retain federal funding.

The Federal Rule redefines “sex” in Title IX and requires school districts to regulate access to sex-specific private facilities such as locker rooms, restrooms, shower rooms, and hotel rooms on overnight school-sponsored trips by gender identity rather than by sex. Virginia School District fully adopted and implemented the Federal Defendant’s Rule as their own policy (“District Policy” or “Policy”).

The consequence of the Federal Rule and District Policy was ineluctable: adolescent girls, in the midst of disrobing within their private locker room, found an adolescent male in their midst. The risk of such encounters, and the encounters themselves, merit prompt judicial intervention to strike the Defendants’ rules and policies and protect Plaintiffs’ bodily privacy.

The generic reaction is that it’s wrong to discriminate against transgender students, and indeed, it is. But that’s where most people stop thinking, to the extent there is any thinking involved. Sorry that issues demand more, even if it causes you a headache or makes you want to cry.

The complaint raises the issues that have been raised here, perhaps a bit too often, that this isn’t just about gender neutral bathrooms, but locker rooms and dorms/hotel rooms for school children ages 3 through 18 which would no longer be separated by biological gender. It’s about some bureaucrats in the waning hours of the current administration fundamentally changing law with a bludgeon to suit their gender politics.

What the transgender “guidance” fails miserably to do is accommodate the nuanced balance between a child’s personal physical privacy and the desire to accommodate the needs of transgender students. The “solution” of providing transgender students with a private place of their own is off the table, as that would stigmatize them.

If boys identify as girls, then they must be treated as such in every way. There is no middle ground allowed to protect the sensibilities of young women who don’t want to share a locker room or hotel room with someone who feels like a female but has the other gender’s genitalia.

Is it time for American society to address the needs of transgender students? Sure. They deserve to be protected. But so do females. So do males. So does everyone. How many times must it be explained the clash of rights results in a zero sum game, where expanding the rights of one identity group comes at the expense of another?

The Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, has made its decision that the tail will wag the dog, that the rights of transgender students transcend those of everyone else, and that schools will change everything to accommodate their needs. Your daughter’s safe environment just went up in smoke to meet the needs of a transgender student?

OCR says tough nuggies, suck it up. Your daughter’s safe environment, so important in every other circumstance that they’re willing, no, thrilled, to sacrifice innocent boys on their altar of eradicating sexual harassment, completely disappears when there’s a transgender student around. Go figure.

This is an exceptionally well-written, well-conceived and comprehensive complaint. It’s not that transgender students don’t deserve protection from discrimination, but that this was never the way to accomplish it, by sacrificing the rights of others. The madness of the bureaucratic bludgeon must stop, and we as a society need to deal with this issue thoughtfully, to accommodate everyone’s rights and needs, not just the favorite identity group of the month.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, other parents and children, the ones who have to live with the consequences of OCR’s agenda, are entitled to feel differently. They are entitled to want personal privacy, just as transgender students are entitled to want the same. The way to deal with all interests isn’t to have it rammed down society’s throat by progressive bureaucrats, but to use the legislative process to achieve a comprehensive and thoughtful approach that accommodates everyone’s rights.

Update: Cristian Farias alerted me to yet another suit, filed in New Mexico, by “radical feminists” seeking to defend the privacy of women.

AB and AB’s Mother do not want men sharing such facilities with AB. They fear not only the increased risk of sexual assault on AB, but the embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, and loss of personal dignity because they will have to share such intimate spaces with men while in various stages of undress.

Are females entitled to some privacy? Of course. Does that disappear at the mention of the word transgender?

14 thoughts on “Minnesota Suit Raises The Other Side Of Title IX (Update)

  1. Patrick Maupin

    The law is working as intended — the girl’s locker room is obviously the only safe space for that dude(tte?). Were it to survive twerking in the guy’s locker room, it would still be sent home for being disruptive.

  2. Ryan

    apparently there is a war within feminism over who is a woman. The radical feminist appear, to my great surprise, to be appealing to logic in the face of the trans feminist’s volleys of feels and ad hominems

    1. SHG Post author

      The theory is inherently flawed, so that they will eventually be forced to cannibalize each other. When extending one person’s rights means constraining another’s, something has to give.

      1. Marc Whipple

        In all seriousness, given the way positive rights now seem to be ascendant, I don’t think there is a way to extend anyone’s rights without constraining another’s. But nobody seems to want to admit that. The constant search for new forms of victimization to celebrate will, inevitably, result in some former oppressed becoming the new oppressors when their own personal lines are crossed.

        So now they will chew on each other like stobor, giving the rest of us a bitter, bloody game of attrition to watch. Please pass the schadenfries, cynical vindication always gives me the munchies.

        Okay that last bit got unserious again. Mostly.

  3. Lee Keller King

    You mean it’s not just redneck, cowboy-hell Texas that is fighting this so-called Rule?

    I wonder why I haven’t seen anything in the mainstream media about these other suits?

    Oh. . . never mind. I remember. “Doesn’t fit the narrative.”

    Lee

  4. Norahc

    The Machiavellian side of me wonders if the expansion of Title IX’s definition of sex ties in with the increased focus on sexual assault I’m schools. After all, the more victims you can create for your cause, the more some people will be willing to increase funding and bureaucratic fiefdoms. Seems like a way to ensure the Culture of Victimhood and SJWs will stay relevant (at least in their minds).

    1. SHG Post author

      To my mind, it muddies things terribly. But then, I don’t seem to see the world through the same eyes as true believers.

  5. Richard G. Kopf

    SHG,

    After sentencing a pregnant and horribly addicted meth head to the max today for violating my supervised release conditions, I’m in a super good mood. With that in mind, I think you are being a meanie. We don’t need thoughtful legislation, we need more and heartfelt feelz.

    I’m sure that if we only love each other everything will just be fine. That is indisputably true, even if you have a penis that you wish would be a uterus or vice versa. After all, them just parts.

    Can’t we all just get along? Truly, we should all aspire to “Teach the World to Sing (In Perfect Harmony).” (Link to 1971 Coke commercial omitted per rule and for the sake of the children.)

    All the best.

    RGK

  6. MollyG

    This case highlights an important lesson in civil rights activism: Always use the most innocent and sympathetic people you can to push the issue.

    The transgendered person, “Student X” is a douche and a jerk and will set back the transgendered rights movement, possibly by years.

    I also question the transgendered nature (or mental state) of Student X. Every transgendered person I know wants nothing more then to be accepted as their transitioned gender, and would never do anything intentional to make someone uncomfortable.

    1. Patrick Maupin

      There are douches and jerks everywhere, which is why we can’t have nice things.

      But if you waved a magic wand and transgender people were welcome in whatever locker room they wanted in, you’d still have this douchey jerk twerking the cheerleaders.

      You see this jerk as a problem who is ruining it for a particular group; I see it as providing a valuable service by showing, not only what can happen, but what will happen.

      Every transgendered person I know

      wears a kilt, as would any True Scotsmen.

      1. Assistant Village Idiot

        Exactly. I work in a psychiatric hospital and only a few of the transgendered people I know want “nothing more than to be accepted as their transitioned gender” – and that includes the few trans staff I’ve known over the years. Most want lots more than that and are eager to get into arguments about it. Of course, that is a non-representative sample as well, so I wouldn’t generalise from it. But people who want to make a punitive, confrontative issue about their gender status undeniably exist, because I have met them. What the percentage is overall I have no idea.

Comments are closed.