Federal judge makes history! Rules sex ‘unambiguously binary’

By Bob Unruh

One of Joe Biden’s key weapons in his promotion of the LGBT ideology for not just people in America but around the world has been his simple redefinition of words.

“Sex,” his administration has claimed, actually means “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Thus, his LGBT goals have been “protected” in federal law for decades, he claims.

Using that simple maneuver Biden bureaucrats have tried to impose that ideology on churches, foster parents, adoptive families, schools, and many others.

Now he’s run into reality.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

In the form of a federal judge who concluded in a court fight over Biden’s agenda that when a 1972 law refers to “sex,” it “carried an unambiguously binary meaning.”

The Post-Millennial reported on the decision in Texas’ lawsuit against Biden over his “guidance” on Title IX.

That law essentially rules that males and females should be treated equally in schools.

Biden demanded through his redefinitions that that law actually, when written in 1972, meant “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Biden’s goal was to remove standards in schools that limited boys, in intimate situations such as locker rooms, to be with other boys, and girls with girls.

Texas’ case was against Biden’s Department of Education and its secretary Miguel Cardona, and the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton explained Biden’s changes were “not in accordance with law and are in excess of statutory authority because they rely upon the interpretation of Title VII described in Bostock and apply it to Title IX.”

Judge Reed O’Connor, in the U.S. district court in northern Texas, took Texas’ side: “Because of this prohibition on sex discrimination, recipients of federal funds generally cannot discriminate based on someone’s sex. However, nothing in the statute expressly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or other unexpressed grounds. And where Title IX allows for differentiation based on sex due to biological differences—such as intimate facilities and athletic teams—recipients may treat persons in accordance with their biological sex without regard to subjective gender identity.”

He explained an investigation into contemporary dictionaries “does not support” Biden’s claims.

“Title IX explicitly appreciates the innate biological variation between men and women that occasionally warrants differentiation—and even separation—to preserve educational opportunities and to promote respect for both sexes,” the judge said. “Rather than promote the equal opportunity, dignity, and respect that Title IX demands for both biological sexes, Defendants’ Guidance Documents do the opposite in an effort to advance an agenda wholly divorced from the text, structure, and contemporary context of Title IX.”

The judge continued, “Not to mention, recipients of Title IX funding—including Texas schools—will face an impossible choice: revise policies in compliance with the Guidance Documents but in contravention of state law or face the loss of substantial funding. Thus, to allow Defendants’ unlawful action to stand would be to functionally rewrite Title IX in a way that shockingly transforms American education and usurps a major question from Congress. That is not how our democratic system functions.”

Paxton said his state “prevailed on behalf of the entire nation.”

For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


Leave a Comment