54

13 comments

In particular, we need a rule that recognizes that both women and transgender women are protected classes—both have liberties that need to be preserved.

How about language erasure and the protection of kids from this mindfuck? "Transgender women" are MEN, and authentic women need and deserve protections for simply stating concrete reality!

Everyone has a right not to be physically assaulted or murdered. Literally no one is disputing that. What's in dispute are special privileges for an "Identity" based in stereotypes rather than biology, and manufactured out of whole cloth.

It is so tiresome the way nobody will actually spell out what "trans rights" actually are any more.

In the context of schools, what rights are we talking about, that only trans children should have?

The right to use restrooms that are reserved for the opposite sex? If it is a right, then why should only trans children have that right?

The right to participate in sex-segregated activities that are reserved for the opposite sex? Why should only trans children have that right?

The right to wear clothing reserved for the opposite sex? Why should only trans children have that right?

So they’re trying to pretend that the consultation WASN’T about girls’ sports and sex discrimination? Fucking gaslighters.

In particular, we need a rule that recognizes that both women and transgender women are protected classes—both have liberties that need to be preserved.

This framing reflects the confusion over this issue. The category of sport created for female people is a protected category. Which is a different concept to the idea that women and girls constitute "protected category" of people under US law, UK law and the laws of most other jurisdictions.

In fact, neither women nor TIP are "protected classes" in most jurisdictions. Rather, under non-discrimination laws, women and TIPs possess protected characteristics - as we all do. Anti-discrimination laws say that in certain areas of life such as employment, housing, education, access to public services, it's illegal to treat people unfairly due to sex, age, religion, race/ethnicity, country of origin, marital or relationship status, genetic history, disease or disability, etc. But this doesn't mean that everyone who has a sex, an age, a race/ethnicity, etc belong to "protected classes" - because everyone has some protected characteristics. The laws just protect people from discrimination based on a specific set of characteristics named in laws.

Even people who possess characteristics that make them members of minority or marginalized groups do not belong to "protected classes" as a result.

Moreover, everyone is protected equally against discrimination based on protected characteristics. So it's just as illegal to discriminate unfairly against a male because of his sex as it is to discriminate against a female due to her sex. It's just as illegal to discriminate unfairly against someone for being Christian as it is to discriminate unfairly against someone for being Jewish.

Some groups of people are provided various sorts of special protections, provisions and accommodations in specific situations and circumstances under the law. Such as pregnant women; babies, minor children and adolescents; elderly people; people with diseases and disabilities; members of some racial minorities. But that doesn't mean anyone fitting in to these groups belongs to a "protected class" which gets them special treatment and privileges in all settings. Nor does it mean no one else is allowed to criticize them or be mean to them.

There are carve-outs in the law that allow for distinctions to be made based on factors like sex, age and disability to so that people with different kinds of bodies and needs can be treated differently in order to allow everyone equal opportunity to partiipate in life. Since all individuals are not physically the same sex and age - and some people have disabilities, learning difficulties, mental handicaps and special needs - fair treatment means acknowledging and making allowances for differences. Setting a "one size fits all" standard that pretends that everyone is physically the same and equal in every way actually puts certain groups - women, children, the elderly, people with disabilities, etc - at a distinct disadvantage and is therefore amounts to unfair discrimination of the sort that equality laws were established to prohibit.

I'm not really a sports fan but I do love how my fellow Americans mostly refuse to shut up about TIMs about women's sports. Keep giving 'em an earful everybody.

i'm not american nor do i care about sports, but i think its an important issue because many sports scholarships make higher education possible for women who would otherwise find it difficult to afford. so its not just about losing a race/spot on a team, its about access to education and everything that brings.

"its an important issue because many sports scholarships make higher education possible for women who would otherwise find it difficult to afford. so its not just about losing a race/spot on a team, its about access to education and everything that brings."

Exactly. And it's also a gateway to a career. Athletic scholarships and personal athletic success are prerequisites to careers in coaching and sports education, as well as, for elite athletes, lucrative sponsorships.

While the comment period is theoretically meant to guide regulators' decisions and provide feedback on their rules, a large portion of the public comments appears to be expressing consternation over a subject irrelevant to this most recent spate of Title IX rules: transgender athletes in women's sports.

Cardona's proposed regulations purposefully left out specific rules surrounding transgender athletes, instead electing to "engage in a separate rulemaking to address Title IX's application to athletics."

Under the new rules, the Department of Education would understand "sex discrimination [as including] discrimination on the basis of . . . sexual orientation, and gender identity," The proposed regulations would also bar schools from "adopting a policy or engaging in a practice that prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with their gender identity." While these proposed regulations would likely apply to other sex-segregated facilities in schools, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, the department has explicitly waited to announce how they would apply to sports.

I know they say they plan to "engage in a separate rulemaking to address Title IX's application to athletics", but how does "an education program or activity" NOT include school athletics? How would excluding specifically athletics NOT immediately get challenged and umbrella-fied as soon as these changes go through?

The Biden administration is lying as per usual, and it figures a libertarian publication that isn't supposed to be politically aligned with Dems won't even consider that they're lying.

I hope there were plenty of comments about the other sex provisions than just athletics! Our girls are not comfortable or safe undressing in front of boys or sharing bathrooms with them.