The Gender Agenda and The Weaponization of Title IX
Republican-led states are suing the Biden administration and are advising schools to ignore the new federal Title IX changes that expand sex discrimination protection to students who identify as the opposite sex. The rule change, which was published on April 19th, formalizes the Department of Education’s redefinition of the meaning of sex to include gender identity. In addition, the changes, which they plan to have go into effect on the first of August this year, give biological males identifying as female the right to use biological female restrooms and locker rooms and join female-only organizations.
Furthermore, under the new rule, “harassment” can even include the use of biologically accurate pronouns. What we are seeing is the weaponization of Title IX for a purpose inherently contrary to what it was set up to achieve, especially when considering that Title IX is a landmark 1972 civil rights law meant to protect women from discrimination based on sex in federally funded educational programs and provide them equal opportunities.
But what we are also seeing is yet another phenomenon that challenges the supremacy of the federal government over the state – much like we saw during the covid plandemic era, and even in relation to the migration crisis in the US. And so today, let’s unpack the Biden administration’s weaponization of Title IX though the changes presented, especially in light of the gender agenda.
THE FINANCIAL WEAPONISATION OF TITLE IX
Let’s start our discussion by zooming into the deliberate weaponization of Title IX. In essence, the Biden administration has promulgated the message that schools and colleges that fail to comply with Title IX stand to lose federal dollars. Now, for some context, according to the US Department of Education, the federal government contributes about 8% to funding US public schools. To fund the remaining balance per student in the public education system, state and local governments are mandated to allocate money towards education. The state then allocates a percentage of its revenue, from sales and income tax, to use towards education. The funds that are set aside for education are also determined by the state constitutions, propositions, and the incoming government officials. In addition, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, states also provide structure, equality, fiscal accountability, stability and support to the public education systems per state. And each state varies the level of support that the schools receive with the implementation of legislation.
Therefore, due to the varied levels of income throughout states and within local communities, education funding in the US at times suffers from inequalities where some communities have excessive funding and others are lacking important resources to support students. According to the research on Equity and Adequacy in School Funding, “much of the current litigation and legislative activity in education funding seeks to assure “adequacy”, meaning a sufficient level of funding to deliver an adequate education to every student in the state. And, “There are key factors in which states receive more funding, teacher salaries, employee benefits, cost of living, class sizes, and demographics. For example, the state of Utah has the lowest state funding due to the fact that the state of Utah can not afford to let the average costs rise due to its immense young demographic, which represents as one in five residents of the state being individuals attending public school. The state of New York, on the other hand, has the highest ranking expenditures: including twenty thousand dollars per student including teacher salaries, and a high cost of living, which is significantly higher than other states.
