Last week, the U.S. Department of Education released its rewrite of Title IX, the 52-year-old landmark federal protection for women’s rights. Under the new rule, civil rights protections now extend to gender identity, too, meaning an 18-year-old boy up to bat on the girls' high school softball team or a 20-year-old man swimming on the women's college swim team.
“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a conference call with reporters.
Decoding that statement, "everyone" refers to that 18-year-old and 20-year-old whose "rights" are protected by the federal government and supersede the females in the dugout and in the swimming pool.
The landmark changes announced last week were first proposed in 2022, setting the stage for the transgender-obsessed administration to turn a feminist victory in the 1970s into a rainbow flag-waving victory 50 years later.
'This rule is coming for you'
The boys-in-girls’-sports issue has many layers. For those working to protect girls’ sports, safety for the young ladies is a top priority. But so is protecting their private spaces.
The revamped Title IX rule requires K-12 schools or colleges who receive any federal funding to allow biological males into girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, etc.
However, messaging that says the new Title IX doesn’t address sports is confusing.
“The Biden Admin wants to say ‘sports aren’t affected’ by its gender ideology Title IX rule. This is a trick! The Biden Admin argues the regulation doesn’t NEED to say sports because Title IX already bans women’s sports on its own accord,” writes May Mailman, the director of the Independent Women’s Law Center and a White House attorney under Donald Trump.
Mailman says her group is planning to sue the administration, The New York Times reports.
Reacting to last week's Title IX announcement, education analyst Meg Kilgannon told Washington Watch host Joseph Backholm the changes are a clear assault on red states that have banned biological males in girls’ sports.
“They are going to enforce this rule, and they are going to enforce it aggressively," Kilgannon warned. "This is designed for the red states and red counties that have put these protections in place. This rule is coming for you. It’s coming for your kids. They want to enforce this rule in your community, in your school, on your students and on your family."
Lawyering up to fight
Mailman isn’t the only attorney planning next steps against the new Title IX.
“This is going to be the subject of lawsuits,” Kilgannon confirmed. “I've been talking to friends in this space about the rule today, but it's been pretty quiet because I know that the lawyers are meeting, and they are planning their cases to file their complaints about this rule as soon as possible.”
Roughly half of U.S. states have passed laws restricting biological males on girls’ sports teams, but it’s a pursuit that remains under attack.
Earlier this month, Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a bill that would have barred biological males from girls’ sports teams just weeks after it passed the state senate with almost 50% support.
Just last week, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a West Virginia law prohibiting males on girls’ teams was a violation of Title IX.
The West Virginia law had been in effect since 2021.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, expressed “deep disappointment.”
“I will keep fighting to safeguard Title IX,” he said. “We must keep working to protect women’s sports, so that women’s safety is secured, and girls have a truly fair playing field. We know the law is correct and will use every available tool to defend it.”
Title IX itself, for now, is no longer one of those tools.
“The poorest places will be harmed the most by this because they relay the most on federal funding to bring their programs up to standard,” said Kilgannon, noting that many middle class and affluent areas can fund schools mostly with property taxes, “but the implications for higher ed and colleges are significant.”
