Justice Department sides with girls fighting to keep boys out of their high school sports

[Teh One Who Knocks]

CONNOR ELLINGTON, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-AUSTIN - The College Fix




“They are incorrect.” The Department of Justice did not mince words in its statement of interest supporting a lawsuit against a state athletic organization that forces girls to compete in sporting events with biological males who identify as girls.

High school athletes Alanna Smith, Chelsea Mitchell and Selina Soule (left to right, above) are seeking an injunction against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference to stop “males—individuals with an XY genotype—from participating in [CIAC] events that are designated for girls, women, or females.”

Not only does CIAC’s transgender rule have no basis in Title IX, the feds argued: It “turn[s] the statute on its head.”

“Because of the physiological differences between men and women, the existence of women’s sports teams permits women to participate more fully in athletics than they otherwise could,” the statement says. To act without this in mind would undermine women’s “equal athletic opportunity” as required by the statute.

It’s the government’s second intervention in the Connecticut dispute. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation last summer into whether the CIAC policy denies “equal athletic benefits and opportunities to girls,” and whether CIAC retaliated against Soule when her mother vocally protested the policy, as Soule claimed.

CIAC has tried to get out of the lawsuit by arguing that it’s not covered by Title IX, an argument the girls’ lawyer called out of step with “clear federal case law” on athletic associations that control public school competition.

The political environment for single-sex sports legislation is also heating up. Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed a bill into law banning biological males from girls’ sports this week, and Ohio lawmakers have proposed the same in a “Save Women’s Sports” bill.



CIAC’s transgender athlete rule differs from that of the NCAA, which specifically orders biologically male athletes to use “testosterone-suppressing hormones” for a year before going head to head with females. Males can enter girls’ competitions in Connecticut simply by asserting a female gender identity.

Turning to text and history, the Justice Department said that in 1972, when Title IX was passed, the word “sex” clearly referred to biological sex.

It pointed to language from a Supreme Court decision that year concerning a federal law that treated military men and women differently in qualifying for a “dependent’s allowance.” The high court called sex “an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth,” just like “race and national origin.”

The brief also argued that if Congress wanted to protect gender identity and not just sex under Title IX, it easily could have changed the law. That’s what lawmakers did in a 2013 amendment to the Violence against Women Act and their 2009 approval of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The underlying theme: Since its enactment in 1972, Title IX has had no such modification to it.

If sex is not interpreted as binary, other parts of Title IX would become incomprehensible, the statement of interest warned.

Gender identity can include genders other than male and female, according to the American Psychological Association, and CIAC argues that the word “sex” includes gender identity. The feds thus ask what should be made of the section of Title IX that states nothing in it “shall be construed to prohibit any educational institution . . . from maintaining separate living facilities for the different sexes.”

It also pointed to other sections of the law that would be strained by the CIAC’s reading of it. Title IX creates an exception for “father-son or mother-daughter activities at an educational institution, but if such activities are provided for students of one sex, opportunities for reasonably comparable activities shall be provided for students of the other sex.”



Another provides a “transitional period” for single-sex schools that plan to admit “students of both sexes.”

If Title IX prevents sex discrimination, requiring students to compete in sports with others of their same sex isn’t discrimination, the government argues.

“The situation is no different for transgender students specifically: biological males with a female gender identity are exposed to the same conditions as similarly situated biological females with a male gender identity,” it says.

“If the law were otherwise, countless sex-specific policies would be per se unlawful,” the statement counseled: “A policy mandating that male students not frequent the women’s bathrooms or locker rooms, for example, would be susceptible to challenge.”

Turning to legislative history, the government noted that Title IX’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana, stated that the law would “permit differential treatment by sex . . . in sport facilities.”

“Reading Title IX to compel schools to require biological males to compete against biological females in athletic competitions is precisely the type of interpretation that this Court should reject” because it would produce outcomes discordant with the rest of the law, the statement concludes.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the girls, cheered the statement of interest. “Girls shouldn’t be reduced to spectators in their own sports. Allowing males to compete in the female category isn’t fair and destroys girls’ athletic opportunities,” legal counsel Christiana Holcomb said in a written statement.

[DemonGeminiX]

Good for you, ladies.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

amazing

[RBP]

It's amazing to me that we have to cheer the use of basic common fucking sense.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Amanda Prestigiacomo - The Daily Wire




On Saturday, attorneys representing three female high school track athletes legally moved to call on the judge overseeing their case, Soule et al v. Connecticut Association of Schools et al., to recuse himself after he chastised and forbade the attorneys from describing biologically male transgender athletes as male.

As highlighted by The Daily Wire in February, student-athletes Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) for permitting biological boys to compete in events and win awards that would otherwise have gone to girls.

A conference call transcript obtained by The Daily Wire from April 16 included District Judge Robert Chatigny scolding ADF attorneys for describing biologically male trans athletes as male.

“Let me raise a point that undoubtedly will cause some consternation for you, Mr. (Roger) Brooks (lead ADF attorney representing the Plaintiffs), and your colleagues, but I exercise my prerogative as the presiding judge in this instance and I hope you will forgive me,” Judge Chatigny started.

“I don’t think we should be referring to the proposed intervenors as ‘male athletes.’ I understand that you prefer to use those words, but they’re very provocative, and I think needlessly so,” he argued. “I don’t think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females. That is what the case is about. This isn’t a case involving males who have decided that they want to run in girls’ events. This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to run in girls’ events.”

Then, the judge ordered, “So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as ‘males’; understood?”

Mr. Brooks was not allowed to respond to the judge until he told him he “understood” what he was saying.

“The entire focus of the case has to do with the fact that male bodies have a physiological advantage over female bodies that gives them an unfair advantage to competition,” Brooks explained. “The entire focus of the case is the fact that the CIAC policy allows individuals who are physiologically, genetically male to compete in girls’ athletics.”

The lead attorney reiterated that their team was “happy” to use the trans athletes’ names rather than refer to them as female, noting that their “names are not the point to the case,” nor is “gender identity.” “The point of this case is physiology of bodies driven by chromosomes and the documented athletic advantage that comes from a male body, male hormones, and male puberty in particular,” he said.

But Judge Chatigny made clear ADF must refer to the athletes as “transgender females,” which he argued is “more accurate terminology” and “consistent with science” and “human decency.”

“What I’m saying is you must refer to them as ‘transgender females’ rather than as ‘males.'” he said. “Again, that’s the more accurate terminology, and I think that it fully protects your client’s legitimate interests. Referring to these individuals as ‘transgender females’ is consistent with science, common practice and perhaps human decency. To refer to them as ‘males,’ period, is not accurate, certainly not as accurate, and I think it’s needlessly provocative; and, for me, civility is a very important value, especially in litigation.”

Judge Chatigny then argued that ADF might have to “take an application to the Court of Appeals” if they won’t comply with his order, since, he said, he doesn’t want to “bully” them into his order, but he also doesn’t want ADF “bullying anybody else,” referring to the transgender athletes. (Brooks later reiterated during the call that they’ve never accused any of the transgender athletes of wrongdoing of any kind, only following the implemented policy, which ADF objects to.)

“So if you feel strongly that you and your clients have a right to refer to these individuals as ‘males’ and that you therefore do not want to comply with my order, then that’s unfortunate,” he said. “But I’ll give you some time to think about it and you can let me know if it’s a problem. If it is, gosh, maybe we’ll need to do something. I don’t want to bully you, but at the same time, I don’t want you to be bullying anybody else. Maybe you might need to take an application to the Court of Appeals. I don’t know. But I certainly don’t want to put civility at risk in this case.”

Brooks told the judge their team was unsure they could “comply” with the order, and asked if they could use “transgender athlete” instead of “transgender female,” to which the judge granted.

On Saturday, ADF attorneys filed a motion arguing that Judge Chatigyny’s order is “legally unprecedented” and calling for his recusal, National Review reported Monday.

“A disinterested observer would reasonably believe that the Court’s order and comments have destroyed the appearance of impartiality in this proceeding. That requires recusal,” the motion reportedly says. “To be sure, the public debate over gender identity and sports is a heated and emotional one. This only increases the urgency that court preserve their role as the singular place in society where all can be heard and present facts before an impartial tribunal.”

[DemonGeminiX]

Well, it's nice to that judges aren't drinking the political blue kool-aid. [/sarcasm]