Comments Submitted on Title IX Rule Change
These are the comments I submitted to the Department of Education in regards to the Biden regime’s intent to gut Title IX protections for girls and women.
It is an unworthy and mean-spirited goal of a U.S. President to intentionally and knowingly disadvantage one-half of the U.S. population. The Biden administration’s attempt to expand Title IX discrimination protection to gender identity underscores it’s animosity toward biological women, and the desire to see women disadvantaged in athletics, education and in the workplace.
To begin to understand this view, one must first examine the purpose and the history of Title IX. A good place to look is on the U.S. Department of Justice website, which summarized the purpose, history and implementation of Title IX.
Congress enacted Title IX with two principal [sic.] objectives in mind: to avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices in education programs, and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 704 (1979).
Further, as the womens civil rights movement gained momentum in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, sex bias and discrimination in schools emerged as a major public policy concern. Women, who were entering the workforce in record numbers, faced a persistent earnings gap compared to their male counterparts. As a consequence of the equality in the workforce debate, Americans also began to focus attention generally on inequities that inhibited the progress of women and girls in education.
In 1972, Title IX began its congressional life in earnest when an amendment was introduced in the Senate by Senator Birch Bayh (D) of Indiana, who explained that its purpose was to combat “the continuation of corrosive and unjustified discrimination against women in the American educational system. During debate, Senator Bayh stressed the fact that economic inequities suffered by women can often be traced to educational inequities. In support of the amendment, Senator Bayh pointed to the link between discrimination in education and subsequent employment opportunities:
“The field of education is just one of many areas where differential treatment [between men and women] has been documented but because education provides access to jobs and financial security, discrimination here is doubly destructive for women. Therefore, a strong and comprehensive measure is needed to provide women with solid legal protection from the persistent, pernicious discrimination which is serving to perpetuate second-class citizenship for American women.”
Thus, the purpose of Title IX protections, are to ensure equal treatment of girls and women in all education settings, including athletics.
Why is athletics equal treatment for girls and women important? Because athletic scholarships are an important source of financial support for higher education. According to scholarshipstats.org, nearly $3 BILLION are available for athletic scholarships in 2021. With the rising expense of higher education, scholarships of all types, including athletic, are important for young people to be able to afford college. Further, a critical step in obtaining high-paying employment in the United States is a college education.
In summary, Title IX is designed to ensure equality in K-12 education, and ultimately equality in college education through equality in access to athletics and the associated scholarships.
However, if boys are allowed to compete in formerly female only sports, what happens to girls? To discern this we must first examine some fact about boys and mens physical advantages in athletics. A 2019 study in the Journal of Medical Ethics concluded that the advantages that trans-women have, result in an intolerable unfairness. The abstract of that study reads in part:
The recent International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2015) guidelines allow transwomen to compete in the women’s division if (amongst other things) their testosterone is held below 10 nmol/L. This is significantly higher than that of cis-women. Science demonstrates that high testosterone and other male physiology provides a performance advantage in sport suggesting that transwomen retain some of that advantage. To determine whether the advantage is unfair necessitates an ethical analysis of the principles of inclusion and fairness. Particularly important is whether the advantage held by transwomen is a tolerable or intolerable unfairness. We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness.
The British Journal of Sports Medicine published a groundbreaking study in 2020 on transgender athletes that found trans-women retain a 12% advantage in running tests even after taking hormones for two years to suppress their testosterone. The conclusion is the IOC guidelines on trans-women may give trans women an “unfair competitive advantage” over biological women.
In 2021, The United Kingdom Sports Councils’ Equality Group concluded that “ . . . for many sports, the inclusion of transgender people, fairness and safety cannot co-exist in a single competitive model.” Further, several guiding principles of their study concluded that:
- Categorisation within the sex binary is and remains the most useful and functional division relative to sporting performance.
- Competitive fairness cannot be reconciled with self-identification into the female category in gender-affected sport.
- Based upon current evidence, testosterone suppression is unlikely to guarantee fairness between
transgender women and natal females in gender-affected sports:
a) Transgender women are on average likely to retain physical advantage in terms of physique, stamina, and strength. Such physical differences will also impact safety parameters in sports which are combat, collision or contact in nature.
b) Recent international policy on testosterone limits are set at a level below 5nmol/L in sports which choose to provide entry into female sports for transgender women. This is more appropriate than the 10nmol/L which is stipulated by the International Olympic Committee and which remains within the normal range for males. The current preliminary 12-month period is unlikely to result in the achievable minimisation of physical capacity.
- ‘Case-by-case’ assessment is unlikely to be practical nor verifiable for entry into gender-affected sports.
In conclusion, Title IX was conceived to allow girls and women non-discriminatory access to educational resources in all forms and settings. Educational resources are key to accessing workplace equity for women. A major source of educational financial assistance is athletic scholarships. If biological males are allowed to compete in female sports, they enjoy innate physical advantages over females, and will thus enjoy unfair athletic advantage over females. The result will be that females will be disadvantaged in winning athletic scholarships and therefore disadvantaged in attending institutions of higher learning. Without access to higher learning, females will be disadvantaged in the work place.
The Biden administration proposition to afford trans-women (men) the same standing as biological women in Title IX protections is a proposition to disadvantage biological women in athletics and therefore to suffer earning disadvantage in the workplace. This commenter can think of no more unworthy and meanspirited goal of a U.S. President to intentionally and knowingly disadvantage one-half of the U.S. population.
Fay, B. 12/16/2021 Athletic Scholarships for College Students. Retrieved from https://scholarshipstats.com/ on 9/10/2022.
Ingle, S. Trans women retain 12% edge in tests two years after transitioning, study finds. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short on 9/10/2022.
Knox T, Anderson LC, Heather A. Transwomen in elite sport: scientific and ethical considerations. Journal of Medical Ethics 2019;45:395-403.
U.K. The Sports Councils’ Equality Group, The UK’s Sports Councils Guidance for Transgender Inclusion in Domestic Sport Published, 2021 retrieved from https://equalityinsport.org/docs/300921/Guidance%20for%20Transgender%20Inclusion%20in%20Domestic%20Sport%202021.pdf on 9/10/2022
U.S. Department of Justice, Synopsis of Purpose of Title IX, Legislative History, and Regulations. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix#II.%C2%A0%C2%A0 on 9/10/2022.
Comment Tracking Number
