There’s one big topic that dominates the athletic world: the issue of gender. Up until a few years ago, the separation of male and female sports was relatively cut-and-dry, and easy to understand.
But with the explosion of “gender identity” theories and transgender individuals participating in professional sports, the situation has become much more controversial.
Unsurprisingly, the current administration backs the far-left ideas that say anyone who “identifies” as a certain gender can play with that gender on a sports team. It’s a widely argued concept.
Now, A U.S. District Court Has Ruled Against One One Of The Most Controversial Policies To Come Out Of D.C.
Liberals and members of the Biden administration support the idea that if a person claims he or she is a particular gender, everyone needs to treat them as being that gender. Biology doesn’t seem to factor in.
The federal government seeks to enforce a policy that upholds this questionable practice, which many professional athletes have already spoken out against.
But it has been stopped — at least temporarily — in one state.
Via The Daily Wire:
A U.S. District Court in Tennessee has temporarily barred the Biden administration from enforcing a policy that would have required states to allow athletes who identify as transgender to play on the sports teams of the gender they identify with.
U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley, Jr. ruled in favor of the 20 state Attorneys General who leveled a lawsuit against the Biden administration last year.
In their case, the AGs claimed that both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and U.S. Department of Education had overstepped their authority.
The plaintiffs argued that these federal agencies had invented new guidance that stomped on existing (or even future) state gender laws. The Biden admin ruling would’ve affected bathroom use as well.
The DOE tried to say that discrimination based on “gender identity” was a violation of Title IX, and the EEOC handed private businesses new guidance.
But Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery alleged that the DOE and EEOC had misinterpreted a Bostock vs. Clayton County, which said a business couldn’t hire or fire based on gender identity or sexual orientation.
These agencies also have misconstrued the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision by claiming its prohibition of discrimination applies to locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms under Title IX and Title VII and biological men who identify as women competing in women’s sports, when the Supreme Court specifically said it was not deciding those issues in Bostock.
The AGs further said the agencies were “Usurping Authority That Properly Belongs To Congress, The States, And The People.”
Before the judge threw down this temporary ban, the federal government could’ve punished schools that don’t comply with their transgender policy. This included possible sanctions.
However, the court agreed with the AGs that the policies in question are “invalid and unlawful” and they shouldn’t be allowed to be enforced.
There will undoubtedly be more legal battles in other states around the country, as many say federal agencies are abusing their authority on this issue. On top of that, gender identity continues to be a very hotly debated topic.