NEW ORLEANS, La. (HEART) – Open 4 November, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Heard arguments for and against a permanent injunction to adopt new Title IX regulations from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE)Legal counsel representing the State of Louisiana and the Rapides County School Board (RPSB).

This hearing came as a result of a lawsuit originally filed with RPSBdeclaring the adoption of new Title IX rules and regulations an “illegal rewrite” by the Biden administration. “Force schools across the country to embrace a controversial gender ideology that harms children.”

DOE It defines Title IX as a civil rights law intended to protect people from discrimination based on their sex in schools, educational programs, and activities. A federal rule that applies to all schools, local and state institutions that receive federal financial aid from the U.S. Department of Education.

Title IX rules in the ongoing case expanded the scope of protections afforded to biological sexes to individuals who identify as a gender other than their biological sex, specifically those of the same biological sex. LGBTQ+ communities.

“The federal government can take enforcement actions if schools don’t comply, and that’s why Rapides, the State of Louisiana, and many others had to file suit in this case because otherwise they would lose millions, if not billions, of dollars in federal education funding.”

After the RPSB’s lawsuit was filed, a court issued a preliminary injunction that formally freezes the effects of the new Title IX rules in states including Mississippi, Montana, Idaho and Louisiana while the case is pending.

At the hearing on November 4, Department of Education representatives argued that privacy concerns about including transgender people in gender-segregated spaces such as bathrooms were ‘justified’ but would exist regardless of the newly introduced rule.

“Locking rooms, bathrooms, showers, etc. “Privacy rights in places existed long before this rule, and these privacy concerns existed even if you did not take into account the presence of transgender people in these spaces.”

Defendants also argued that although this remains a potential problem, a solution will remain in the hands of the school board, arguing that schools can provide multiple avenues for improvement at the administrative level and have been successful among schools across the country, the plaintiffs argued. He argued that it was not true.

When faced with the issue of including transgender people in gender-segregated classes, such as physical education, the defense argued that the new rules would not be violated because schools could separate students by ability (such as weight class or age) rather than biological sex. A claim that Judge Jerry Smith disputed.

“This seems really stupid to me,” Smith said. “You’re telling us, if there’s a biological male in gym class and he’s playing… let’s say volleyball or basketball… what do you do? Can you get really big, big girls to play on the team with him? Is that the plan?

“We cannot create equality of opportunity if we ignore biological differences. “Everyone knows there are important biological differences.”

Louisiana State representative Autumn Patterson’s arguments dovetail with statements from Smith, who stated that mixing biological sexes through ability-based discrimination would be contrary to the intentions of Congress when Title IX was first created and could potentially pose a higher risk to biological women.

“In Title IX, Congress recognized that there was still value in continuing single-sex activities such as Boy Scouts and sororities.”

“The inclusion of biological males in female classes may create a risk of injury or humiliation.”

Focusing on the debate about specific gender-inclusive facilities such as showers or locker rooms, Patterson said: “Sex is not a stereotype, (…) gender is an important requirement in determining who gets access.”

He also stated that schools would be authorized to build gender-neutral bathrooms, claiming that the DOE did not acknowledge the potential financial costs to schools when creating the new rules. Schools would be violating Title IX’s anti-discrimination rules by not providing opportunities to students who do not identify with a gendered gender; this is a claim that DOE maintains is not enforceable.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill released the following statement after the hearing:

The case is still ongoing.

Click here to report a typo. Please include the title of the article in your email.

Copyright 2024 HEART. All rights reserved.