The objective standard that the Trump administration is looking to apply to Title IX would replace a hodgepodge of rules, regulations, and definitions of gender as it pertains to the federal government, explains David Marcus in The Federalist.
It is important to understand that this change will in no way affect how trans people or anybody else choose to label themselves. Rather, it will allow the government to have an objective standard when implementing federal programs. Without such a standard, a haphazard set of rules exists as to who qualifies for legal protections under Title IX.
Metaphysical Assertion vs. Actual Legal Text
Is there a compelling scientific basis upon which to believe a person can change sexes? It seems many believe that one can do so. But it’s just that: a belief, writes David Marcus in The Federalist.
Foisting this metaphysical assertion on all of the federal government’s actions in absence of any actual legal text to support it, as the Obama administration tried to do, was the wrong decision.
The Department of Education argues that sex ought to be defined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” In other words, sex ought to have an objectively observable definition.
Reality, Not Evil
By all means Democrats who wish to change Title IX by explicitly amending it to include protection for effeminate behavior by biological men, or masculine behavior by biological women, or to protect self-attributed “gender identity,” should do so, Ben Shapiro argues in NRO.
But to simply rewrite the law along the lines of illogical leftist groupthink is a violation of any constitutional system. It happens to be bad policy as well.
… nobody should make the utterly dishonest suggestion that willful, illegal rewriting of law to back overtly political priorities amounts to either answerable government or supportable science.