Thread by @babybeginner

1/ A thread.

Here are some key passages of Tennessee vs Cardona, a ruling granting a preliminary injunction against the department of education in their new Title IX. rules.

In other words: not so fast with those Title IX changes!

Or as the mainstream media laments:

2/ The case was brought by six states: Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, a group of Christian educators and one 15 year old girl.

The first line of the opinion is already impressive. “There are two sexes: male and female.”

3/ On April 29, 2024 the Department of Education redefined sex in Title IX to include gender identity in what will be called the Final Rule. Those states objected to this expansion of Title IX.

4/ The judge starts by explaining what Title IX was for. It was written to combat these examples of differential treatment of women. Such as some federally funded schools wouldn’t admit married women, some wouldn’t admit women at all, etc etc.

5/ The Final Rule states that for the purposes of Title IX discrimination on the basis of sex now includes discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

6/ The Department declined to provide a special definition of gender identity but understands it to “describe an individual’s sense of their gender which may or may not be different from their sex assigned at birth.”

7/ The plaintiffs object to the Final Rule and seek to eventually have the rules invalidated but for now they sought a preliminary injunction to prevent these rules going forward.

The court granted that injunction.

8/ Because sex was not originally defined in the statute, the court looks to the ordinary meaning of the word as defined at the time the statute was enacted. Which meant “the character of being male or female.”

9/ The court discusses compelled speech and whether the first amendment is being infringed with these new rules.

The government cannot require people hold a particular viewpoint.

Requiring people use preferred pronouns is a viewpoint in itself.

This part is key.

10/ The government may not regulate speech based on hostility or favoritism towards the underlying message. Requiring preferred pronouns gives a “heckler’s veto” or power to the person demanding that you use them.

11/ “The Department’s Final Rule forces the Nation’s schools and educators to convey a message ordained in Washington D.C., while silencing dissenting opinions and undermining state law and the discretion of local school boards.”

12/ The Final Rule suppresses one side of the debate, the court writes, strangling the marketplace of ideas.

The rule “attempts to compel speakers to affirm the concept of gender identity, while punishing or silencing those with a different perspective.”

13/ The plaintiffs say the rule is too vague and who knows what gender identity means therefore it chills speech.

In response the Department says it means their sense of gender which the court says “offer no guidance whatsoever”.

14/ Worse than offering no guidance the court says this term “of vital importance” can be subjectively defined and based entirely on a sense of self.

15/ In the context of misgendering, which the rule says can be a violation of Title IX, there can be no objective standard because it can only be viewed offensive if you believe that sex and gender are distinct.

16/ The Final Rule authorizes arbitrary enforcement. It places far too much discretion over speech. And because it mandates acceptance of gender identity concepts the discretion only goes one way.

17/ “…the Final Rule’s underlying terminology is vague and intentionally undefined.” It not only applies to actions at a school but online as well and therefore chills speech.

18/ The court says the parental rights claim is likely to succeed because parents retain a constitutionally protected right to guide their children on matters of identity including the decision to adopt gender norms.

19/ As a practical note, the court writes, ignoring fundamental biological truths deprives women and girls of meaningful access to educational facilities due to privacy interests.

(Yay!! Someone remembers the women and girls exist!).

20/ The Final Rule mandates that schools permit men into women’s intimate spaces and vice versa based entirely on subjective gender identity. “This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.”

21/ “….the Department has effectively ignored the concerns of parents, teachers, and students who believe the Final Rule endangers basic privacy and safety interests.” Rather than address these issues the Department “throws its figurative hands in the air and says ‘too bad’”.

22/ TL:DR?

A court stops passage of the changes to Title IX for now. The court says adding gender identity to Title IX is undefined, contradictory, too sweeping, too one sided, too costly, ignores privacy rights, and goes against parental rights and state rights.