In a testy exchange during a press briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to provide a definitive answer when asked by a reporter whether the Biden administration believes it’s “fair” for men who identify as women to compete in female sports, adding that “it is complicated.”
A reporter asked Ms. Jean-Pierre during an Aug. 29 White House press briefing whether President Joe Biden cares whether “girls are allowed to compete in sports without fear of injury” or if he believes it’s “fair for girls to have to compete against biological males.”
Ms. Jean-Pierre replied by saying that the issue is “complicated” and defies a simple yes or no answer.
“It is truly a complicated issue with a wide range of views,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said. “There is no yes or no answer to this. It is complicated.”
The press secretary then provided some context, namely that there’s a proposal of rulemaking put forward by the Department of Education (DOE) that is currently being considered that targets the issue of biological males playing in female sports.
“There’s a rule that the Department of Education has put forward, and we’re going to let that process move forward,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said.
Title IX Modification Proposal
Ms. Jean-Pierre’s remarks about the DOE rule refers to a proposal to amend the department’s regulations that implement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which seeks to expand protections at federally-funded schools against sex discrimination to include “discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”Ms. Jean-Pierre said during the press conference that the proposed rule “gives schools the flexibility to establish their own athletic policies” and that it seeks to strike a balance between establishing guardrails to protect women it also seeks “to prevent discrimination against transgender kids.”
“That is something that is incredibly important, that the president wants to make sure that we also do that as well. So, I’m just not going to get ahead of that,” she added.
“Carefully considering and reviewing these comments takes time, and is essential to ensuring the final rule is enduring,” the DOE said in the update.
Comments both in support and in opposition to the rule have been submitted.
“Stop enabling everyone and anyone who denies the science of biology: humans are born male or female, period,” the commenter added.
Freedom of Speech Concerns
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an Arizona-based public interest law firm that submitted comments, said that expanding the definition of sex discrimination in education threatens free speech.“Students who identify as transgender commonly request to be addressed by different names and pronouns,” ADF said in its comment.
“The use of pronouns inconsistent with a person’s sex communicates a message: that what makes a person a man or a woman is solely that person’s sense of being a man or a woman,” the group continued.
“Students who take a contrary view of the relationship between biological sex and personal identity (for religious, philosophical, scientific, or other reasons) may be reluctant to use those terms because using them contradicts their own deeply held views,” ADF said.
Fight Over Definition of ‘Sex’
The DOE’s proposed regulation marks the latest move in a long-running dispute over what exactly “sex” means in Title IX.The Trump administration rejected that guidance, saying that only Congress or the Supreme Court has the authority to redefine that term.
Reed Rubinstein, then-principal deputy general counsel for the DOE, argued that the term “sex” must be interpreted based on what it meant when Title IX became law.
“Based on controlling authorities, we must give effect to the ordinary public meaning at the time of enactment and construe the term ’sex' in Title IX to mean biological sex, male or female,” Mr. Rubinstein wrote in the memo. “Congress has the authority to rewrite Title IX and redefine its terms at any time. To date, however, Congress has chosen not to do so.”
The Rubinstein memo is written as a discussion of whether the enforcement of Title IX was affected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, a 6–3 majority ruled that employment discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex.
“The court decided the case narrowly, specifically refusing to extend its holding to Title IX and other differently drafted statutes,” Mr. Rubinstein noted.