The administration claims acceptance of transgender students has "pernicious effects."The AdvocateBy Trudy RingApril 04 2025In the Trump administration's latest anti-transgender action, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education Friday announced a Title IX Special Investigations Team to investigate what they call “the pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities.” By that they mean acceptance of transgender students, and LGBTQ+ organizations are condemning the move.In a press release, they claimed they have received “a staggering volume of Title IX complaints.” Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bans sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. Democratic administrations have interpreted it to include discrimination based on gender identity, but the current administration has adopted a strict binary definition of sex as assigned at birth.
You know when Trump's administration uses words like “a staggering volume of Title IX complaints.” it means that they probably only received only a couple of complaints.
“Protecting women and women’s sports is a key priority for this Department of Justice,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in the press release. “This collaborative effort with the Department of Education will enable our attorneys to take comprehensive action when women’s sports or spaces are threatened and use the full power of the law to remedy any violation of women’s civil rights.”
So what are they cutting to the hundred of thousands of students... school food programs!
AP NewsBy PATRICK WHITTLEApril 7, 2025Maine officials sued the administration of President Donald Trump on Monday to try to stop the government from freezing federal money in the wake of a dispute over transgender athletes in sports.Trump and Maine, which is controlled by Democrats, are in the midst of a weeks long dispute about the Title IX anti-discrimination law and the participation of transgender students in high school sports. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said earlier this month that the U.S. Department of Agriculture was pausing some funds for Maine educational programs because of what she described as Maine’s failure to comply with the Title IX law.Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey filed a complaint in federal court on Monday that described the pause as “illegally withholding grant funds that go to keeping children fed.” The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order preventing the USDA from withholding money until a court is able to hear the case.
In the feds hatred of us they are will to cut food assistance to hundred of thousands of other students because of twelve or so students.
Tensions between Maine and the Trump administration have simmered since February when Trump threatened to pull funding from Maine if the state does not comply with his executive order barring transgender athletes from sports. Mills, who was present at the White House for a meeting of governors, told the president: “We’ll see you in court.”
There have been a number of Supreme Court cases that have affirmed that trans students are protected by Title IX contrary to Trumps rants. In the case of Bostock v. Clayton County
...in which it held that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.”1 Despite the holding’s language and Bostock’s focus on firing under Title VII, the potential impact of the decision is much broader: The Supreme Court’s opinion states that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
This framing has much larger implications and provides a critical tool to address the widespread discrimination that LGBTQ people face not just in employment but in other key areas of life as well. Although Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent in Bostock is dripping with transphobia and homophobia, it correctly notes that the court’s broad holding could advance LGBTQ equality under civil rights statutes that prohibit sex discrimination, such as Title IX, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Fair Housing Act, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
And in the Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board the Supreme Court refused to hear a lower court case appeal and let the ruling stand.
The United States Supreme Court has declined to review a federal court ruling in favor of a transgender student and his family challenging a discriminatory restroom policy at an Indiana public school district.Represented by the ACLU of Indiana, an adolescent transgender boy and his parents filed a lawsuit against the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville in December 2021 for failing to provide him with access to bathrooms consistent with his gender in violation of his rights under Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In an August 2023 opinion, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found the school district policy did likely violate the student’s rights under Title IX and equal protection.“We’re thankful the Court allowed this momentous victory for the transgender youth of Indiana to stand,” said Kenneth Falk, Legal Director of the ACLU of Indiana. “This case is about the fundamental right of every student to a safe and inclusive learning environment, and the policy at its core is an affront to the freedom of transgender youth to be themselves. We look forward to continuing to advocate for transgender Hoosiers and their families wherever their equality before the law is challenged.”
But the Trump administration totally ignores court rulings that they don't like.
No comments:
Post a Comment