In 2024, we saw a district judge grant Texas and Montana’s request for a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s attempt “to impose a sweeping new social policy” that allows for Title IX coverage for gender identity. The ruling followed a protruding trend of other cases in which federal judges have brought Title IX revisions to a halt. Well, recently making headlines is The UK Supreme Court has ruled that under the Equality Act of 2010, ‘woman’ refers to individuals based on their biological sex at birth. This decision impacts how services and spaces designated for women are accessed, reinforcing protections based on biological sex. Furthermore, the ruling follows advocacy by three Scottish women and is seen as a significant moment for women’s rights in the UK, affecting policies across various sectors including employment, sports, and healthcare. And so we ought to discuss this further in light of a protruding trend of judicial and political resistance to the gender agenda.
LANDMARK CASE: UK SUPREME COURT RULES LEGAL DEFINITION OF WOMAN IS BASED ON BIOLOGICAL SEX
And now onto our main discussion, on the protruding trend of judicial and political resistance to the gender agenda; and we ought to start with the news making the headlines, which is the UK supreme court has issued a historic and definitive ruling that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer only to a biological woman and to biological sex. In this decision, five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (also known as GRCs).
The case was brought to the supreme court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female. And Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said the Equality Act was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.
So, in addition, Lord Hodge further highlighted that this ruling affected policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces. In its 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word “biological” did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”. If “sex” did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face “practical difficulties”. And so, “Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.”
This is a clear vindication for people who have consistently advocated for common sense, and who have insisted that the laws of their respective nations reflect this common sense. However, while this is a victory that certainly should be celebrated, we should also note that the court’s ruling has not yet gone the full distance. More specifically, while this ruling affects policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, trans women, however, still have rights that are predicated upon the assumption of their being women, as opposed to correctly identifying them as biological men. For instance, trans women still have equal pay rights as women, and could even have the right to be treated as women in some situations. And as expected, the entitled transgender women, who have been pampered by legislators, politicians and members of the public who did not refute the ideology they were attempting to indoctrinate society with, well, they are upset that the definitions make sense again – despite the privilege they still wrongfully enjoy. In fact he goes on to concede that there are many privileges and protection tha trans people enjoy, but his only point of protest is that this seems like Trump’s America in the UK – despite the fact that it will not affect his day-to-day life.
This, therefore, means that while the UK Supreme court has emphasised that the definition of a woman is tied to biological sex, it does not quite characterise transgenderism as a violation of this basic fact, upon which its ruling is based. Hence, trans women still have equal pay rights as women, and could even have the right to be treated as women in some situations. That said, it certainly should not be regarded as a minor victory, what the UK supreme court has accomplished.
IN THE U.S., A FEDERAL COURT BLOCKED TITLE IX EXPANSION IN TEXAS AND MONTANA
In the most recent decision against Title IX expansion, the US District Judge Jeremy Kernodle for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can’t force state health care providers to fund gender-affirming care by threatening them with the loss of federal funding. In May 2024, HHS issued a statement on its Final Rule, which expanded the definition of Title IX protections in 2016 to include “discrimination based on the basis of gender identity” to fit in with Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, Title IX was initially established in 1972 to protect women from discrimination in public education.
Now, Texas and Montana, which are two states that exclude gender-affirming care procedures from their Medicaid programs and prohibit doctors from performing them on minors – they sued HHS, arguing that the federal health department has no authority to mandate that the states adhere to these revisions. In response, HHS said in its statement that the regulations were updated to prevent “dehumanising beliefs” surrounding medical treatments and conditions such as gender dysphoria. The HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra further stated that the Final Rule’s intent is to “strengthen protections” and ensure “equal access to [America’s] health care system and its social service programs for people with disabilities and their families.”
Thankfully, however, Judge Kernodle wrote in his order that the Final Rule proposes an “absurd” policy in that health care entities are prohibited from limiting services exclusive to one sex, such as providing a prostate exam. Judge Kernodle also stated in his judgement the Final Rule would also allow men who identify as females to be allowed in “female-exclusive facilities, including shared hospital rooms.” And as it is in other rulings on this issue, the primary reason for Judge Kernodle’s decision was that the states demonstrated that they would face irreparable financial harm by failing to comply with HHS’s rule. For instance, both the states of Texas and Montana receive billions in federal funding, which would “likely be withheld for violating the Final Rule, and thus harm the operations of these states.
IN ADDITION TO TEXAS AND MONTANA, MORE STATES ARE PUSHING BACK TOO
And these developments are not exclusive to Texas and Montana. In fact, on July 3, U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. for the Southern District of Mississippi also ruled that HHS couldn’t enforce its reinterpretation of Title IX protections to include gender identity. Plaintiffs in up to 15 states, including Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, and Mississippi, filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi.
Judge Gurioloa said the plaintiffs have proven that they would “incur substantial costs” by losing federal funding if they didn’t comply with the Final Rule, which was the deciding factor in his order. And “As a result, the Court [found] that Plaintiffs have established all four elements for imposing a preliminary injunction and stay. Other rulings include Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, in which a federal judge ruled that the Department of Education couldn’t impose its redefinition of sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation. This is the Kensas AG Kris Kobach.
We also ought to zoom in on the state of Kentucky. Essentially, the Biden Administration’s attempt to rewrite federal Title IX regulations was temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Kentucky. His ruling granted a preliminary injunction, thus blocking implementation of the new rules in the states of Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Another federal judge had similarly blocked the rollout of the new regulations in the states of Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Montana, thus bringing the total number of states to 10 at that time.
The decisions come after attorneys general in over 20 Republican-led states have filed seven different lawsuits against the new policy, which changes Title IX protections from being based strictly on gender to including protections for so-called “transgender” students, including those who want to use facilities that are designated for the opposite gender; the Biden Administration has claimed, however, that the new rules do not apply to sports.
Another preliminary injunction request is currently under review by another judge; if the judge sides with the states, it would further block implementation of the new rules in the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Biden’s Education Department (ED) has asked the judge to deny the states’ request.
Furthermore, the new Title IX rules, set to take effect in August, would also have expanded the definition of “sexual harassment” on college campuses in a manner that critics say would be far too harsh against the accused and thus result in unfair burdens of proof placed on the accused, rather than the presumption of innocence. In fact, in a statement celebrating Judge Reeves’ ruling, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman (R-Ky.) declared that “the judge’s order makes clear that the U.S. Department of Education’s attempt to redefine ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity’ is unlawful and beyond the agency’s regulatory authority.” All in all, there is a protruding trend of judicial resistance to Title IX expansion. But, this is not a mere political win for conservatives. Crucial to remember is that this battle is about courts protecting young girls and women against the Biden administration’s illegal actions.
THE PUSHBACK TO TITLE IX EXPANSION FROM LAWMAKERS
The Biden administration’s overhaul of Title IX has also been met with pushback from lawmakers in favour of preserving female-only spaces. Among the dissenters has been Rep. Virginia Foxx, who serves as the Education and the Workforce Committee Chair. Ms. Foxx asserted that the Department of Education’s final Title IX rule puts a radical agenda of left-wing ideologues over the safety of women and girls.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso
