The Biden Administration’s radical redefinition of Title IX has officially been rescinded—a massive victory for parents, fairness in women’s sports, and the protection of free speech in schools. For the past four years, the Department of Education sought to twist a law originally intended to prevent sex-based discrimination into an ideological weapon forcing schools to adopt gender identity policies that undermined biological reality and parental rights. This reversal is a decisive rejection of that overreach. However, while many conservatives rightly celebrate the reinstatement of the 2020 Title IX regulations as a necessary step in restoring sanity, we must also acknowledge that the Trump-era reforms left problematic gaps that still demand attention.
Rescinding Biden’s Title IX Overhaul: Why It Matters
In 2024, the Biden Administration attempted to rewrite Title IX by explicitly including gender identity as a protected category. This move would have:
Forced schools to allow biological males into women’s sports, disregarding the inherent physical advantages and years of scientific evidence on male athletic superiority (Hilton & Lundberg, 2021).
Compelled teachers and students to use preferred pronouns, violating First Amendment protections (Meriwether v. Shawnee State Univ., 6th Cir. 2021).
Mandated gender-identity-based bathroom and locker room policies, disregarding student privacy and parental concerns (Alliance Defending Freedom, 2023).
By rejecting these extreme policies, the revocation of Biden’s Title IX expansion protects fairness, biological reality, and parental authority. However, while the 2020 Trump-era reforms were a major improvement, they were not perfect.
Unfinished Business: The Problems with the 2020 Title IX Regulations
While the 2020 Title IX reforms restored due process protections and reined in some of the Obama-era excesses, they still left significant vulnerabilities that activist school districts have exploited.
1. Gender Identity Loopholes
The 2020 Title IX regulations did not explicitly define sex as biological sex, nor did they outright prohibit schools from implementing gender identity policies at the local level. As a result:
States like California and New York continued enforcing gender identity mandates, allowing male athletes to compete in female sports and granting them access to women’s spaces.
Activist school boards implemented pronoun policies, disciplining teachers who refused to comply, despite the Trump-era DOE avoiding a national policy on the issue (Vlaming v. West Point School Board, 2023).
🛑 Solution: The next step in Title IX reform must be to explicitly define ‘sex’ as biological sex and preemptively block activist states from undermining federal protections.
2. Parental Rights & Transparency Concerns
Despite rolling back the worst excesses of the Obama Administration’s guidance, the 2020 Title IX rules still allowed schools too much discretion in handling student issues without parental notification.
Example: School districts used ‘privacy’ arguments to hide gender transitions from parents.
Wisconsin’s Madison Metropolitan School District explicitly advised teachers not to inform parents if their child was socially transitioning at school (Doe v. MMSD, 2023).
Virginia schools issued similar guidance, forcing parents to file lawsuits just to obtain information about their children’s gender identity changes in school (Parents Defending Education, 2022).
🛑 Solution: A revised Title IX must require parental notification in all cases involving gender identity, social transitions, or name/pronoun changes at school.
3. Off-Campus Free Speech & Due Process Still at Risk
The 2020 Title IX reforms limited schools’ jurisdiction to ‘on-campus’ incidents, but some districts continued to punish students for social media activity outside of school by claiming it created a “hostile environment.”
Example: Schools punishing students for conservative speech.
In Mahanoy v. B.L. (2021), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a cheerleader punished for a Snapchat post made off-campus and outside school hours (SCOTUS, 2021).
Yet, some schools still use ‘harassment’ policies to silence political speech, punishing students for criticizing gender ideology or expressing conservative views online.
🛑 Solution: Future Title IX reforms must include explicit free speech protections, preventing schools from punishing students for off-campus political speech unless it directly threatens violence.
Where We Go From Here
The rescinding of Biden’s radical Title IX rewrite is a major win, but we must not stop here. The 2020 reforms, while better than previous versions, did not go far enough in protecting biological sex, parental rights, and free speech.
✅ The path forward must include:
A clear definition of ‘sex’ as biological sex to prevent activist manipulation.
Mandatory parental notification for any gender-related issue involving minors.
Stronger protections against compelled speech (e.g., pronoun mandates for teachers and students).
Explicit safeguards against school overreach into students’ private, off-campus speech.
Title IX was meant to ensure fairness, not impose ideological mandates. If conservatives want to ensure its original intent remains intact, we must push for stronger protections that prevent activist bureaucrats from subverting the law’s purpose once again.
For now, celebrate the defeat of Biden’s Title IX overreach, but remember—the fight isn’t over.
Comments