Transgender sports: Trump's Justice Department weighs in on the side of science

Title IX says that, in the education setting, people cannot be discriminated against based on their sex.  Congress passed Title IX in 1972, at a time when people had the old-fashioned idea that there were two sexes, one with XX chromosomes and the other with XY chromosomes.  Fast-forward almost fifty years, and you have Connecticut government entities insisting that if a boy claims to be a girl (and there's no requirement that he actually believes this false notion), schools must allow him to compete in girls' sports events.

That's how these two boys ran away with the Connecticut High School track championships and, in all probability, with the college scholarships that could go with them:

As the video notes, not all the girls who got shortchanged were willing to accept that they could be kicked out of the race by two massively muscled boys.  Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, and Alanna Smith sued various Connecticut entities for discrimination and Title IX violations.

Before wading into the lawsuit, it's worth emphasizing that there's not a scintilla of science behind the transgender theory, something one can see by reviewing a September 2018 policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (the largest and most influential pediatric organization in America).

From the very first paragraph, the AAP policy jumbles together homosexuality and bisexuality, on the one hand, and "transgenderism," on the other.  This jumbling is significant.  While the former LGB lobby (before Transgender and Questioning hopped on board) may have claimed, "Baby, I was born this way," the LGB community was always concerned with behavior rather than biological identity.  With the Ls, Gs, and Bs, there was never any question about the fact that they were boys and girls, right down to the DNA.

The AAP, however, has chosen to say there is no meaningful distinction between people's sexual orientation (a behavior) and their sex (something that, until the "transgender" lobby got involved, was a biological issue).  That's already a giveaway that they're making it up as they go along.

Following that introduction, the statement accepts without question the concept that sex is "merely" a scientific issue but that gender identity overrides mere biology.  It then dives into the Orwellian definitions for "genders," from "cisgender" on down.

What's most disturbing is that the AAP policy statement does not rely upon scientific studies to support this gobbledygook.  Instead, it concludes its definitional word soup by pointing not to a scientific publication, but to The Gender Book.

The Gender Book's authors are open about the fact that theirs is a fun book that eschews science texts.  They liken it to The Magic School Bus.  The authors, incidentally, are self-identified activists, not scientists.

And that's it for the science in the AAP's official statement on transgenderism, a statement that is a pathway for subjecting young bodies to dangerous hormonal treatment and mutilating surgery.  (You can read more about the lack of science here.)

Fortunately, the Department of Justice has decided to support biology and science, rather than siding with the Democrats.  Ironically, it's the Democrats who keep insisting that they're the "party of Science," as if science is a thing, like an apple pie, rather than a process used to arrive at a data-supported conclusion.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest, interceding in the Connecticut lawsuit.  In its brief, the DOJ states unequivocally that feeling like the opposite sex does not mean you are the opposite sex, and, therefore, you do not get the benefit of Title IX:

Title IX and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination solely "on the basis of sex," not on the basis of transgender status, and therefore neither require nor authorize CIAC's transgender policy. To the contrary, CIAC's construction of Title IX as requiring the participation of students on athletic teams that reflect their gender identity would turn the statute on its head. One of Title IX's core purposes is to ensure that women have an "equal athletic opportunity" to participate in school athletic programs. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c); see also Cohen v. Brown Univ., 991 F.2d 888, 897 (1st Cir. 1993) ("Equal opportunity to participate lies at the core of Title IX's purpose."). Schools realize that purpose primarily by establishing separate athletic teams for men and women and by ensuring that those teams are on equal footing. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(b)-(c). 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.

Three cheers for real science, as opposed to political science!

Title IX says that, in the education setting, people cannot be discriminated against based on their sex.  Congress passed Title IX in 1972, at a time when people had the old-fashioned idea that there were two sexes, one with XX chromosomes and the other with XY chromosomes.  Fast-forward almost fifty years, and you have Connecticut government entities insisting that if a boy claims to be a girl (and there's no requirement that he actually believes this false notion), schools must allow him to compete in girls' sports events.

That's how these two boys ran away with the Connecticut High School track championships and, in all probability, with the college scholarships that could go with them:

As the video notes, not all the girls who got shortchanged were willing to accept that they could be kicked out of the race by two massively muscled boys.  Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchell, and Alanna Smith sued various Connecticut entities for discrimination and Title IX violations.

Before wading into the lawsuit, it's worth emphasizing that there's not a scintilla of science behind the transgender theory, something one can see by reviewing a September 2018 policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (the largest and most influential pediatric organization in America).

From the very first paragraph, the AAP policy jumbles together homosexuality and bisexuality, on the one hand, and "transgenderism," on the other.  This jumbling is significant.  While the former LGB lobby (before Transgender and Questioning hopped on board) may have claimed, "Baby, I was born this way," the LGB community was always concerned with behavior rather than biological identity.  With the Ls, Gs, and Bs, there was never any question about the fact that they were boys and girls, right down to the DNA.

The AAP, however, has chosen to say there is no meaningful distinction between people's sexual orientation (a behavior) and their sex (something that, until the "transgender" lobby got involved, was a biological issue).  That's already a giveaway that they're making it up as they go along.

Following that introduction, the statement accepts without question the concept that sex is "merely" a scientific issue but that gender identity overrides mere biology.  It then dives into the Orwellian definitions for "genders," from "cisgender" on down.

What's most disturbing is that the AAP policy statement does not rely upon scientific studies to support this gobbledygook.  Instead, it concludes its definitional word soup by pointing not to a scientific publication, but to The Gender Book.

The Gender Book's authors are open about the fact that theirs is a fun book that eschews science texts.  They liken it to The Magic School Bus.  The authors, incidentally, are self-identified activists, not scientists.

And that's it for the science in the AAP's official statement on transgenderism, a statement that is a pathway for subjecting young bodies to dangerous hormonal treatment and mutilating surgery.  (You can read more about the lack of science here.)

Fortunately, the Department of Justice has decided to support biology and science, rather than siding with the Democrats.  Ironically, it's the Democrats who keep insisting that they're the "party of Science," as if science is a thing, like an apple pie, rather than a process used to arrive at a data-supported conclusion.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest, interceding in the Connecticut lawsuit.  In its brief, the DOJ states unequivocally that feeling like the opposite sex does not mean you are the opposite sex, and, therefore, you do not get the benefit of Title IX:

Title IX and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination solely "on the basis of sex," not on the basis of transgender status, and therefore neither require nor authorize CIAC's transgender policy. To the contrary, CIAC's construction of Title IX as requiring the participation of students on athletic teams that reflect their gender identity would turn the statute on its head. One of Title IX's core purposes is to ensure that women have an "equal athletic opportunity" to participate in school athletic programs. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c); see also Cohen v. Brown Univ., 991 F.2d 888, 897 (1st Cir. 1993) ("Equal opportunity to participate lies at the core of Title IX's purpose."). Schools realize that purpose primarily by establishing separate athletic teams for men and women and by ensuring that those teams are on equal footing. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(b)-(c). 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.

Three cheers for real science, as opposed to political science!