Two GOP judges in Texas blocked the Biden administration’s expanded Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. Their justifications are purely transphobic, but disguised under the intentions to maintain the integrity of cisgender women’s protections under Title IX.
In April, the Department of Education expanded the parameters of anti-discrimination protections based on sex. The new rules determined that discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community would reasonably fall under those protections.
This decision follows a precedent, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County back in 2020 that Title VII’s protections against discrimination based on sex in the workplace would include covering discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity. The updated protections were to go into effect on August 1.
On July 11, Republican-appointed U.S. District Court Judges Matthew Kacsmaryk and Reed O’Connor both blocked the newly defined Title IX protections. They sourced strict, literal interpretations of Title IX’s original wording. According to Kacsmaryk, “Title IX protects women in spaces that were historically reserved to men.”
As Kacsmaryk doesn’t consider trans women to be women, including trans identities under these protections would, in his eyes, be admitting men under the Title IX coverage reserved for women.
The original implementation of Title IX sex-based discrimination protections was designed to protect cisgender women and girls. While that’s true, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t be interpreted to protect trans women and other LGBTQ+ identities. Kacsmaryk’s block is wholly dependent on the fact he doesn’t view trans women as real women. In addition, O’Connor writes that the protections expansion counteracts “over 50 years of progress for women and girls made possible by Title IX.”
NBC News reported that the Department of Education viewed the expansion as Title IX’s purpose to protect marginalized groups being fully realized. However, Kacsmaryk disagreed and claimed that the DOE hadn’t adequately explained how Title VII’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County on workplace discrimination applies to Title IX’s jurisdiction of schools and athletics.
These Texas rulings are two of the latest blocks that imply that trans rights directly conflict with the goals of women’s rights, which is a false narrative perpetuated by anti-trans activists. Trans women receiving protection under Title IX will not mean cisgender women lose their coverage. Trans women are women, and all women deserve to be protected against discrimination.
