The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that a lawsuit involving a transgender student suing under Title IX can go forward and sent it back to a lower court.

The court seems to be saying your feelings are what matter, not your actual biology. They’ve seemingly ruled in favor of feelings, not facts. The slippery slope just got more slippery.

Read the Ruling here.

Pay attention to the dissenting opinion from Judge Niemeyer starting on page 47, which in part says, “This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and 48 safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect. More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of Title IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result.”

The student, Gavin Grimm, is female but ‘identifies’ as male. Grimm had been using the boys bathrooms until parents complained.

The school district made separate accommodations available to Grimm, but that wasn’t good enough. Grimm insisted on using the boys bathroom and subsequently sued.

News and Record has an AP report and they include this tidbit:

A federal judge had previously rejected Grimm’s sex discrimination claim, but the court said that judge ignored a U.S. Department of Education regulation that transgender students in public schools must be allowed to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity.

First, it’s not a U.S. Department of Education “regulation”.

The U.S. Department of Education sent out a nonbinding letter on this topic.  There is no federal law including transgender persons  or gender identity.  This is interpretation.

Judge Neimeyer even points out there is no federal law supporting this, stating in his dissent that, “The recent Office for Civil Rights letter, moreover, which is not law but which is the only authority on which the majority relies, states more than the majority acknowledges.”

Neimeyer goes on to point out that Title IX is not ambiguous, writing that, “Title IX and its implementing regulations are not ambiguous. In recognition of physiological privacy and safety concerns, they allow schools to provide “separate living facilities for the different sexes,” 20 U.S.C. § 1686, provided that the facilities are “proportionate” and “comparable,” 34 C.F.R. § 106.32(b), and to provide “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” again provided that the facilities are “comparable,” 34 C.F.R. § 106.33.”

Title IX says in part that, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

The U.S. Department of Education interpreting Title IX. Just like OSHA and the EEOC have interpreted protections to include transgender persons.

Title IX was meant to protect females from exclusion, not force inclusion of a male, who in their head, claims they are female.

There is a clear action states can take: Refuse Title IX funding.

READ:
6 Myths About Allowing Transgender Students to Use Restrooms of the Opposite Sex
McCrory Steps Up, Joins Amicus Brief Sans Cooper

Related:  How far the Democrats have come from ‘protecting’ women to now openly promoting a war on them.

The world is fighting Islamic terrorism, starvation, and disease, but democrats are fighting for men to pee in the ladies’ room. #insanity

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) April 17, 2016