Davin News Server

On 4/24/2024 4:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:57:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/22/2024 5:43 PM, NoBody wrote:
>>>
>>> "
>>>
>>> Arguing the Biden administration’s decision to include gender identity
>>> in Title IX will harm women, conservative groups have vowed to work to
>>> reverse the “administrative fiat” in the courts.
>>>
>>> Many argue Biden’s Education Department lacks the authority to rewrite
>>> the 52-year-old federal law to redefine sex to include sexual
>>> orientation and gender identity.
>>>
>>> “This regulation is an assault on women and girls,” stated Betsy
>>> DeVos, education secretary under President Donald Trump, in a post on
>>> X.
>>>
>>> “It makes it a federal requirement that boys be allowed in girls
>>> bathrooms in elementary schools. It makes it a federal requirement
>>> that men be allowed to play women’s sports, putting their safety,
>>> privacy and competitive opportunity at risk. And it makes it a federal
>>> requirement that feelings, not facts, dictate how Title IX is
>>> enforced,” DeVos stated."
>>>
>>> https://www.thecollegefix.com/conservatives-prep-lawsuits-as-bidens-title-ix-rewrite-to-include-gender-identity-condemned/
>>
>> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was interpreted by SCOTUS (in an
>> opinion written by Gorsuch) to mean that discrimination on the basis of
>> sexual orientation or gender identity in the workplace discriminates on
>> the basis of sex. This interpretation of Title IX mirrors that logic.
>> For example, you can't deny admission to a school because someone is gay
>> or trans. Prior to this regulation, you could under federal law.
>>
>> Also, this regulation does not imply that boys must be allowed to use
>> the girls' bathroom or men must be allowed to compete in women's sports.
>> Prior to this regulation, neither was permitted even though both treat
>> boys/men differently than girls/women. Privacy, safety and the integrity
>> of women's sports justified treating the sexes differently. It may also
>> be the case under the new regulation that denying trans women access to
>> the woman's bathroom or women's sports are also justified.
> 
> The writer of the article disagrees with you, as well as many others.

 From the fact sheet that summarizes the revised rule:

"The rule prohibits discrimination and harassment based on sexual 
orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics in federally 
funded education programs, applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s 
ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County." (Bostock is the decision I 
referenced above, written by Gorsuch).

"The final regulations clarify that a school must not separate or treat 
people differently based on sex in a manner that subjects them to more 
than de minimis harm, except in limited circumstances permitted by Title 
IX. The final regulations further recognize that preventing someone from 
participating in school (including in sex-separate activities) 
consistent with their gender identity causes that person more than de 
minimis harm. This general nondiscrimination principle applies except in 
the limited circumstances specified by statute, such as in the context 
of sex-separate living facilities and sex-separate athletic teams.  The 
final regulations do not include new rules governing eligibility 
criteria for athletic teams."

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-final-rule-factsheet.pdf

In your opinion, when the government forbid schools from denying 
admission to trans students is that a bad thing because it normalizes a 
mental illness?