Bench Memos

Law & the Courts

Fourth Circuit Inflicts Sex Change on Title IX—Part 3 (On ‘Discrimination’)

See Parts 1 and 2

Let’s explore the Obama administration’s position that Title IX requires that schools receiving federal funding allow boys who identify as female to use the girls’ bathroom, locker room, and shower facilities (and allow girls who identify as male to use the boys’ facilities).

As I will show in this post, reserving girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities for biological females (and boys’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities for biological males) does not in fact involve any discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Rather, under the guise of nondiscrimination rhetoric, the Obama administration is pressing the substantive claim that gender identity trumps biological sex under Title IX—in other words, that schools must discriminate in favor of gender identity. That is a policy position that transgender advocates are welcome to push for in the legislative arena. But, as I will show in my next post, it is a baseless and absurd reading of Title IX.

1. Some brief background:

Title IX, enacted in 1972, provides generally that no person “shall, on the basis of sex, … be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” (Emphasis added.) 

The Department of Education has never undertaken notice-and-comment rulemaking or any other formal procedure in support of its newfound position that Title IX forbids reserving sex-assigned bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities to those of the corresponding biological sex. Instead, it adopted that position in bureaucratic stealth and made it public in a January 2015 letter that acting deputy assistant secretary James A. Ferg-Cadima sent to various persons.

Ferg-Cadima’s letter contains only the barest of legal assertions: He states that Title IX “prohibits recipients of Federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of sex, including gender identity.” He also declares:

The Department’s Title IX regulations permit schools to provide sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing, athletic teams, and single-sex classes under certain circumstances. When a school elects to separate or treat students differently on the basis of sex in those situations, a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity. [Emphasis added.]

(His letter also includes two footnotes with string citations that, though not appended to either of the propositions I quote, are presumably thought to support them.)

2. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Ferg-Cadima’s first proposition is right: that Title IX actually forbids discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

A person discriminates on the basis of a trait when he takes that trait into account in his decisionmaking,* and he doesn’t discriminate when he disregards that trait. So, for example, a person discriminates on the basis of race when he factors a job applicant’s race into his hiring decision, and he doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race when he disregards the applicant’s race in making his hiring decision. Similarly, a person discriminates on the basis of gender identity when he factors a job applicant’s gender identity into his hiring decision, and he doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender identity when he disregards the applicant’s gender identity in making his hiring decision.

But in the context of single-sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities, the very same concept of discrimination on the basis of gender identity plays very differently from what transgender advocates contend. In this context, a school complies with the norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity when it disregards a student’s gender identity and instead assigns the student to the facilities that correspond with his biological sex.

(To be clear: Discrimination, properly understood, is not an all-purpose epithet for anything one dislikes or regards as unjust. So my observation that having separate facilities for the biological sexes doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender identity is not meant to dispose of other objections to such facilities.)

In other words, Ferg-Cadima’s second proposition—that, when it comes to access to bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, a school “generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity”—does not flow from or implement the principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity that he asserts. Instead, Ferg-Cadima’s nondiscrimination rhetoric masks the reality that he is advancing the substantive claim that, on these access questions, Title IX calls for gender identity to trump biological sex.

As I will discuss in my next post, that substantive claim about the meaning of Title IX is unsustainable.

* Perhaps better stated: A person discriminates on the basis of a trait when he takes that trait into account in his decisionmaking when there is no compelling or inherent justification for doing so. Thus, for example, it’s not discrimination on the basis of sex to have research dollars for uterine cancer go entirely to research on female subjects. (There might be a broader claim that the allocation of research dollars for cancer research generally discriminates on the basis of sex, though the apples-to-apples comparison could become very difficult.) Nothing in the body of my post involves this alternative and somewhat narrower concept of discrimination. 

Most Popular

White House

Another Warning Sign

The Mueller report is of course about Russian interference in the 2016 election and about the White House's interference in the resulting investigation. But I couldn’t help also reading the report as a window into the manner of administration that characterizes the Trump era, and therefore as another warning ... Read More
White House

The Mueller Report Should Shock Our Conscience

I've finished reading the entire Mueller report, and I must confess that even as a longtime, quite open critic of Donald Trump, I was surprised at the sheer scope, scale, and brazenness of the lies, falsehoods, and misdirections detailed by the Special Counsel's Office. We've become accustomed to Trump making up ... Read More
World

What’s So Great about Western Civilization

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter), One of the things I tell new parents is something that was told to me when my daughter still had that ... Read More
Film & TV

Jesus Is Not the Joker

Actors love to think they can play anything, but the job of any half-decent filmmaker is to tell them when they’re not right for a part. If the Rock wants to play Kurt Cobain, try to talk him out of it. Adam Sandler as King Lear is not a great match. And then there’s Joaquin Phoenix. He’s playing Jesus ... Read More
Sports

Screw York Yankees

You are dead to me. You are a collection of Fredos. The cock has crowed, you pathetic sniveling jerks. The team I have rooted for since 1965, when I first visited the House that Ruth Built, where I hawked peanuts and ice cream a lifetime ago, watched countless games (Guidry striking out 18!), has gotten so ... Read More
U.S.

Supreme Court Mulls Citizenship Question for Census

Washington -- The oral arguments the Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday will be more decorous than the gusts of judicial testiness that blew the case up to the nation’s highest tribunal. The case, which raises arcane questions of administrative law but could have widely radiating political and policy ... Read More