ADVERTISEMENT

Iowa Gov. Reynolds threatens lawsuit over new Title IX protections

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,614
59,176
113
More LGBTQ hate and fear mongering from our Governor:

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds threatened legal action Monday over new federal Title IX rules that seek to protect students from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, saying the new rules are a threat to women’s rights.



Reynolds, a Republican, said in a statement she had asked Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird to litigate the new rules. Iowa would join at least 15 other GOP-led states in challenging the regulations, which are set to take effect Aug. 1.


Democratic President Joe Biden's administration announced the final rule in April, expanding the scope of the 1972 law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at K-12 schools and higher education institutions. The new rules extend those protections to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.




The changes also expand the type of sexual harassment and assault claims a school must respond to and change the grievance process for those claims.


“These final regulations build on the legacy of Title IX by clarifying that all our nation’s students can access schools that are safe, welcoming and respect their rights,” U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement.


In her statement, Reynolds said the Biden administration is “marginalizing girls and women” by expanding the definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation.


“There are undeniable and important biological differences between males and females,” Reynolds said. “It's a fact that cannot be denied, no matter how inconvenient it is for the president during an election year. While he caves to the radical left, I will continue to protect the rights of women of all ages.”





At least 15 other states have sued the Biden administration attempting to stop the rule from taking effect. The lawsuits, supported by conservative civil rights organizations, argue that the education department overstepped its authority and submitted arbitrary, unworkable rules.


The U.S. Education Department has warned any states that do not follow the law will risk losing federal education funding, according to K-12 Dive.


The rules do not weigh in on how educational institutions should approach the participation of transgender girls and women in sports, which has been a focus of Reynolds and Republicans nationally. The Department of Education proposed a separate rule relating to athletics last year, and it still is formulating the final version.


Reynolds signed a law in 2022 that banned transgender girls and women in Iowa from competing on a sports team corresponding with their gender identity at the high school and college levels.


Last year, Reynolds signed a law that requires students and staff at public schools to use the bathroom and changing facilities that align with their sex assigned at birth. Schools must make a private, single-use bathroom available for anyone who requests it. That law would run afoul of the new federal regulations, which require schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.


Reynolds proposed a bill this year that would define terms like “man,” woman,” “male” and “female” to align with a person’s sex assigned at birth. The bill would have required government accommodations to be provided to a person based on their sex assigned at birth rather than gender identity. The bill advanced out of an Iowa House committee but did not pass either legislative chamber.


A spokesperson for Bird did not immediately respond to a question asking whether she would be filing a lawsuit over the rule. A White House spokesperson also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
 
What does it mean to protect them from discrimination based on gender identity?

Does it mean that you can't stop them from attending your university based on gender identity. If that's the case I'm for that.

But does it mean that a female student group can't decide it's biological women only? Does it mean that they have to let a post puberty transition play on the women's basketball team or play against women in intermurals?
 
More LGBTQ hate and fear mongering from our Governor:

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds threatened legal action Monday over new federal Title IX rules that seek to protect students from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, saying the new rules are a threat to women’s rights.



Reynolds, a Republican, said in a statement she had asked Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird to litigate the new rules. Iowa would join at least 15 other GOP-led states in challenging the regulations, which are set to take effect Aug. 1.


Democratic President Joe Biden's administration announced the final rule in April, expanding the scope of the 1972 law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at K-12 schools and higher education institutions. The new rules extend those protections to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.




The changes also expand the type of sexual harassment and assault claims a school must respond to and change the grievance process for those claims.


“These final regulations build on the legacy of Title IX by clarifying that all our nation’s students can access schools that are safe, welcoming and respect their rights,” U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement.


In her statement, Reynolds said the Biden administration is “marginalizing girls and women” by expanding the definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation.


“There are undeniable and important biological differences between males and females,” Reynolds said. “It's a fact that cannot be denied, no matter how inconvenient it is for the president during an election year. While he caves to the radical left, I will continue to protect the rights of women of all ages.”





At least 15 other states have sued the Biden administration attempting to stop the rule from taking effect. The lawsuits, supported by conservative civil rights organizations, argue that the education department overstepped its authority and submitted arbitrary, unworkable rules.


The U.S. Education Department has warned any states that do not follow the law will risk losing federal education funding, according to K-12 Dive.


The rules do not weigh in on how educational institutions should approach the participation of transgender girls and women in sports, which has been a focus of Reynolds and Republicans nationally. The Department of Education proposed a separate rule relating to athletics last year, and it still is formulating the final version.


Reynolds signed a law in 2022 that banned transgender girls and women in Iowa from competing on a sports team corresponding with their gender identity at the high school and college levels.


Last year, Reynolds signed a law that requires students and staff at public schools to use the bathroom and changing facilities that align with their sex assigned at birth. Schools must make a private, single-use bathroom available for anyone who requests it. That law would run afoul of the new federal regulations, which require schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.


Reynolds proposed a bill this year that would define terms like “man,” woman,” “male” and “female” to align with a person’s sex assigned at birth. The bill would have required government accommodations to be provided to a person based on their sex assigned at birth rather than gender identity. The bill advanced out of an Iowa House committee but did not pass either legislative chamber.


A spokesperson for Bird did not immediately respond to a question asking whether she would be filing a lawsuit over the rule. A White House spokesperson also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
You mean more of you hating women and girls?
 
This is the first time I actually read an entire one of your news articles and I fail to see where I should be outraged.
Biden's rule gives Rs exactly what they asked for. Yet they still balk. Yet another example of the Rs being bad faith bargaining partners.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: abby97
What does it mean to protect them from discrimination based on gender identity?

Does it mean that you can't stop them from attending your university based on gender identity. If that's the case I'm for that.

But does it mean that a female student group can't decide it's biological women only? Does it mean that they have to let a post puberty transition play on the women's basketball team or play against women in intermurals?
The new rule states that elementary trans kids can't be banned but that some high school and college kids can if they have an unfair advantage.
 
I would totally disagree with that,... My position is that all trans athletes should compete with men.
So it has nothing to do with unfair advantage then? Way to admit that your position of protecting women was a lie.
 
Nice to see that Kimmy doesn't think that young people like me are deserving of protection.


"In her statement, Reynolds said the Biden administration is “marginalizing girls and women” by expanding the definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation."
 
So it has nothing to do with unfair advantage then? Way to admit that your position of protecting women was a lie.

No, my approach is based on the fact that the advantage is inherent and always present,.. You have male athletes, you have female athletes, and you have trans athletes,.. No matter which direction they are migrating, trans athletes are not "women" and hence they come physically equipped with an automatic advantage over the normal female athlete,.. Putting trans athletes into male competition protects the female athletes from unfair competition...
 
No, my approach is based on the fact that the advantage is inherent and always present,.. You have male athletes, you have female athletes, and you have trans athletes,.. No matter which direction they are migrating, trans athletes are not "women" and hence they come physically equipped with an automatic advantage over the normal female athlete,.. Putting trans athletes into male competition protects the female athletes from unfair competition...
The Biden rule clearly says that athletes with unfair advantage cannot compete. So what's the basis of the lawsuit beyond hate?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ICHerky
The Biden rule clearly says that athletes with unfair advantage cannot compete. So what's the basis of the lawsuit beyond hate?

Lawsuit is based on the fact that Biden's approach does not fix anything and simply muddies the water,.. Who exactly will determine when an unfair advantage exists?,.. It's an impossible guideline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
Not LGBTQ hate and fear mongering from our governor,.. Protection for the rights of female athletes.
Did you read the article?

Edit: Here you go.

The rules do not weigh in on how educational institutions should approach the participation of transgender girls and women in sports, which has been a focus of Reynolds and Republicans nationally. The Department of Education proposed a separate rule relating to athletics last year, and it still is formulating the final version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mthawkeyes
So it has nothing to do with unfair advantage then? Way to admit that your position of protecting women was a lie.
I think it is impossible to quantify an unfair advantage, which makes the rule more than a bit troublesome and subjective. Objective rules are always preferable. In this case, because there is an inherent physiological advantage to biological males, the simplest and most objective rule is to state that biological males cannot compete in competitions designed for women.
 
I think it is impossible to quantify an unfair advantage, which makes the rule more than a bit troublesome and subjective. Objective rules are always preferable. In this case, because there is an inherent physiological advantage to biological males, the simplest and most objective rule is to state that biological males cannot compete in competitions designed for women.
If it's impossible to fairly gauge an unfair advantage then how can you ban someone you accuse of having one?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: abby97
If it's impossible to fairly gauge an unfair advantage then how can you ban someone you accuse of having one?

An entire sex has been shown for a millennium to have, as a class, a significant physiological advantage. This is quantifiable, and I assume that you have always accepted it is true. Otherwise, why have women’s sports?

Identifying whether or not an individual male has done enough to his body to eliminate his inherent advantage to the extent that it is no longer unfair to compete against women is impossible.

I’ve said all along Title IX is going to be a problem. And so it begins.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT