Hello to the authors. Thanks for publishing your thoughts here on this important and timely issue. I enjoy reading the arguments/logic of others, even if I disagree.
Below are some excerpts from the email that I sent you privately, slightly revised here, mostly in attempts at wit. In the spirit of constructive comments, I also added below new content, a summary paragraph that I think sharpens, narrows, and strengthens your arguments vis-a-vis Rule of Law.
Given the SCOTUS decision in Bostock, it seems to me that the Rule of Law actually requires revisions to Title IX by the Dept of Ed. One might argue (and perhaps the SCOTUS will, given the author of its decision specifically advised it should be interpreted narrowly) that Title VII and Title IX aren't the same. One may feel it isn't fair for a transgendered person to be summarily fired for being transgender, but if that is to imply that anyone who claims to be a certain gender therefore gets to compete in sex-differentiated athletic competitions at schools, that does seem strange to me.
Your referring to the 'govt bureaucrats' might be changed to 'govt officials' - that would better match the members of the SCOTUS. Maybe your argument is more along the lines of separation of powers - that Congress really should enact the change, not the SCOTUS. That I agree with! It was another point of dissent in Bostock - mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Well, shucks, Congress doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything lately, except appropriate money.
[ Ranked Choice Voting ! RCV ! RCV ! It really is important, to bring the country back to compromise among reasonable elected representatives. ]
The rationale (for Bostock --> Title IX) is in the following, which is referenced in the proposed revisions to Title IX that you linked to.
Notice of Interpretation—Enforcement of Title IX with Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County, 86 FR 32637 (June 22, 2021) (2021 Bostock Notice of Interpretation), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-06-22/pdf/2021-13058.pdf .
Minor quibble: I would suggest changing "We consider the recent revisions by the Department of Education dangerous for the following reasons:" to "The proposed revisions by the Department of Education conflict with each of the following:" For instance, it seems too dramatic to claim that the "Rule of Law" is endangered by this Title IX change, or any other single piece of policy. Is Science Integrity endangered by some govt official's change in policy? If the State of Indiana had passed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill , would that actually change pi? No, and certainly not outside Indiana. I think one or two states declared Pluto still a planet when the IAU deemed it a minor planet. That doesn't challenge the integrity of science; I get your point - I just think it is too exaggerated.
In summary, for me the strength of your argument would be something like the following.
With respect to Bostock, we concur with the majority that its decision should be interpreted narrowly to apply to Title VII (employment), not e.g. Title IX (education). We note that the SCOTUS' majority opinion anticipated and rejected the notion of modifying Title IX administratively in response to its decision in Bostock when it wrote, "They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today but none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today." We also concur with the dissent in Bostock that the SCOTUS should have decided the case differently, i.e. the SCOTUS should not be legislating; that's the job of Congress, and we respect the separation of powers designed into our government by the US Constitution.
Not only is this a mockery to God the creator of mankind, it has to be the greatest harm and Child and human abuse ever! It has been reported that 13 children's hospitals across America are already castrating minor boys, and giving them hormonal change medicine which will cause side effects as bone deteriation, among many other things. Grave mental confussion. And anger at who ever did this to them. This makes harm to the future existance and well being of mankind, by surgically sterializing future generations. No children , no descendants! and non reversible surgeries! This has to be made against the law to cut up our children and teach them they could have been born in the wrong body!!! Parents will take their children out of school and School can not run with out children. causing a great danger of closing down American schools , causing illitercy. These demons must be stopped. .
Hello to the authors. Thanks for publishing your thoughts here on this important and timely issue. I enjoy reading the arguments/logic of others, even if I disagree.
Below are some excerpts from the email that I sent you privately, slightly revised here, mostly in attempts at wit. In the spirit of constructive comments, I also added below new content, a summary paragraph that I think sharpens, narrows, and strengthens your arguments vis-a-vis Rule of Law.
Given the SCOTUS decision in Bostock, it seems to me that the Rule of Law actually requires revisions to Title IX by the Dept of Ed. One might argue (and perhaps the SCOTUS will, given the author of its decision specifically advised it should be interpreted narrowly) that Title VII and Title IX aren't the same. One may feel it isn't fair for a transgendered person to be summarily fired for being transgender, but if that is to imply that anyone who claims to be a certain gender therefore gets to compete in sex-differentiated athletic competitions at schools, that does seem strange to me.
Your referring to the 'govt bureaucrats' might be changed to 'govt officials' - that would better match the members of the SCOTUS. Maybe your argument is more along the lines of separation of powers - that Congress really should enact the change, not the SCOTUS. That I agree with! It was another point of dissent in Bostock - mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Well, shucks, Congress doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything lately, except appropriate money.
[ Ranked Choice Voting ! RCV ! RCV ! It really is important, to bring the country back to compromise among reasonable elected representatives. ]
The rationale (for Bostock --> Title IX) is in the following, which is referenced in the proposed revisions to Title IX that you linked to.
Notice of Interpretation—Enforcement of Title IX with Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County, 86 FR 32637 (June 22, 2021) (2021 Bostock Notice of Interpretation), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-06-22/pdf/2021-13058.pdf .
Minor quibble: I would suggest changing "We consider the recent revisions by the Department of Education dangerous for the following reasons:" to "The proposed revisions by the Department of Education conflict with each of the following:" For instance, it seems too dramatic to claim that the "Rule of Law" is endangered by this Title IX change, or any other single piece of policy. Is Science Integrity endangered by some govt official's change in policy? If the State of Indiana had passed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill , would that actually change pi? No, and certainly not outside Indiana. I think one or two states declared Pluto still a planet when the IAU deemed it a minor planet. That doesn't challenge the integrity of science; I get your point - I just think it is too exaggerated.
In summary, for me the strength of your argument would be something like the following.
With respect to Bostock, we concur with the majority that its decision should be interpreted narrowly to apply to Title VII (employment), not e.g. Title IX (education). We note that the SCOTUS' majority opinion anticipated and rejected the notion of modifying Title IX administratively in response to its decision in Bostock when it wrote, "They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today but none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today." We also concur with the dissent in Bostock that the SCOTUS should have decided the case differently, i.e. the SCOTUS should not be legislating; that's the job of Congress, and we respect the separation of powers designed into our government by the US Constitution.
Peter
Not only is this a mockery to God the creator of mankind, it has to be the greatest harm and Child and human abuse ever! It has been reported that 13 children's hospitals across America are already castrating minor boys, and giving them hormonal change medicine which will cause side effects as bone deteriation, among many other things. Grave mental confussion. And anger at who ever did this to them. This makes harm to the future existance and well being of mankind, by surgically sterializing future generations. No children , no descendants! and non reversible surgeries! This has to be made against the law to cut up our children and teach them they could have been born in the wrong body!!! Parents will take their children out of school and School can not run with out children. causing a great danger of closing down American schools , causing illitercy. These demons must be stopped. .
Agree.