Did you see the news last week from the Supreme Court about Title IX? In a 5-4 vote — wow, that was a close one!! — they left in place the of the lower courts’ temporary blocks in implementing the Biden Administration’s expansion of Title IX definitions to include gender ideology. The Supreme Court did not actually issue any opinion about the expansion or revisions of the law itself. They merely decided to let stand the lower courts’ “pause” on implementing the rules while the court cases are being decided. More than half the states, including Missouri, have obtained those injunctions, or temporary pauses. More explanation on that can be found here: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4832117-supreme-court-denies-title-ix-doj-request/
The question of whether the executive branch has the authority to simply redefine what is meant by “sex” in the legislature’s 1972 non-discrimination law known as “Title IX” is not even close to being settled. Title IX was meant to ensure that girls have a fair chance in sports competitions, locker room and bathroom facilities, and other arenas which are separated by sex.
The terms “sex” and “gender” have become nearly interchangeable in much of society. But there is now a stark difference between what is sometimes meant by “sex” or “gender”, and it behooves us at the Ozark School District to clarify what we mean in our documents when we refer to those terms. As I explained previously, here and here, it is easily seen that male physical bodies are different from female physical bodies. The biological, chromosomal sex of the person determines that body’s development. The psychological, ideological “gender” of the person is very different from the physiological, biological way the body is built. Why else is there such a search for hormones or surgery for those who wish to get their physical bodies to match their psychological view?
Those undeniable physiological differences between males bodies and female bodies make it such that they are not meant to fairly compete in sports with or against each other. To convince ourselves with a few examples, consider for a moment which traits give an advantage in a sports competition like swimming or running or even wrestling or volleyball.
Does the athlete’s age matter? Sure. We naturally separate different ages in order to make the competitions “more fair.” Does the athlete’s height or weight give them a competitive edge? Yes, that physical trait aids or hinder the athlete, too. How about biological sex, does it bolster the athlete’s ability to compete with more strength or quickness? Yes, sometimes a lot. Okay, now, let’s consider the athlete’s favorite color. Does that give him or her a competitive advantage in a physical contest? Or maybe the athlete’s taste in country or rock or other type of music? How about the athlete’s preference for math? Does the person’s favorite subject in school help him or her compete better in an athletic competition? Of course not. It’s quite clear that the traits which give a boost in athletic competitions are the physical ones, not the psychological ones. So, now we’ve seen that biological “sex” is a physiological construct seen at birth (and sometimes before, if the baby is cooperative during the ultrasound!), a construct relating to how the physical body is hardwired, while “gender” is a psychological construct, relating to perception and feeling and preference. Even if a person feels a psychological identification with another gender, it is indisputable that the person’s body is built based on physical sex with, for example, higher or lower levels of testosterone, greater or lesser strength in the legs or upper torso, etc.
Therefore, I am proposing that the Ozark School District move forward to clarify our definitions now, when the pressure is off because of a temporary court injunction, and before more is at stake. Let us enjoy the relative calm and protection of a state law ensuring our girls don’t have to compete against boys in sports before the federal government tries to override it, and let us define clearly what we mean by “gender” and “sex.” Let us consider, discuss, and refine the addition of the following proposed sentence just before the already-existing section for definitions in our Policy ACA, where other parts of Title IX are explained and defined:
The terms “gender” and “sex” have been frequently used interchangeably in society, therefore the Board clarifies that the intent of either of those words used throughout the District’s policies and other written documents should be understood to mean “physical, chromosomal sex,” and, in every decision requiring a distinction between “male” and “female”, the differentiation will be based on physical sex.
What do you think about this topic? Is it worth having a written policy about it? Do you mind if a person with male body parts who identifies as female uses the same bathroom or locker room as your daughter? Who will stop him if there’s no written rule against it? It’s such a sensitive topic; I believe the Board needs to protect our students and our teachers by clearly establishing what we mean. Let us know your thoughts!
*As always, I speak only for myself and do not intend to represent the Board to you in any way in what I say or write.
I do, however, fully and firmly intend to represent YOU to the Board!