In 1972, Congress passed Title IX to address sex discrimination and barriers that many women faced in education. One of the greatest effects of this legislation was the subsequent expansion of women’s sports, which has given women numerous opportunities to compete, build confidence, and advance their education and career goals.
However, government officials have tried to undermine Title IX and these advancements for women by attempting to redefine the word “sex.” On his very first day in office, President Joe Biden issued an executive order redefining “sex” and “sex discrimination” in federal law by expanding those terms to encompass “gender identity.” In other words, the Biden administration tried to twist legislation intended to help women and girls by redefining what it means to be a woman or a girl—in complete contradiction to biological reality.
Thankfully, in January 2025, a federal district court rejected the Biden administration’s illegal rule changes and made them unenforceable nationwide. And the Trump administration has continued this trajectory of protecting women, girls, and laws like Title IX.
When biological differences between men and women are ignored, it is women and girls who suffer the most. Alliance Defending Freedom recognizes that if Title IX is to continue offering opportunities and protections for women and girls, it must continue to reflect the intrinsic differences between the sexes.
What is Title IX?
Title IX was passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on June 23, 1972.
Title IX was intended to eliminate obstacles many women faced in education, especially in higher education. The main provision of Title IX states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
In practice, Title IX banned most sex discrimination in college admissions, required colleges and universities to prohibit sexual harassment on campus, allowed women greater access to financial assistance, and paved the way for the later expansion of women’s sports.
What is the history of Title IX?
Title IX was seen as a follow-up bill to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among other provisions, the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in the areas of employment and public accommodation. But the Civil Rights Act did not address sex discrimination in federally funded programs.
President Lyndon Johnson later signed executive orders to try to address these issues, but the federal government did not strictly enforce them in education. So, by 1970, legislators began devising solutions around the same time the Equal Rights Amendment was being debated in Congress.
In the early 1970s, Hawaii Rep. Patsy Mink, with contributions from Oregon Rep. Edith Green and Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh, authored and sponsored a bill to ban sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.
After negotiations, exemptions were made for private institutions and single-sex (all-male or all-female) education institutions.
This bill later became Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Since then, numerous pieces of legislation have sought to limit the scope of Title IX’s applicability, while court cases and “dear colleague” letters from the executive branch have sought to expand Title IX’s scope.
While some of the specifics of Title IX have been debated, one thing about it is clear: it has helped increase educational opportunities for women and girls. As an example, the percentage of women between the ages of 25 and 34 who have at least a college degree has more than tripled since 1968.
What has been Title IX’s effect on women’s sports?
One of the greatest effects of Title IX has been on women’s sports.
Before Title IX was passed, male athletes vastly outnumbered their female counterparts. According to the Women’s Sports Foundation, in 1972, boys outnumbered girls 3.66 million to 300,000 (more than a 12:1 ratio) in high school sports. Fifty years later, that ratio had shrunk to about 4:3 (4.5 million boys to 3.4 million girls).
Similar changes can be seen in collegiate athletics. In 1972, male athletes outnumbered female athletes 170,000 to 30,000 (almost a 6:1 ratio). In 2022, that gap shrunk to just under 4:3 (275,000 men to 215,000 women).
The meaning of ‘sex’ in Title IX
For decades, Title IX has been hailed for banning “sex discrimination” in education. Ironically, though, the plain meaning of the word “sex” is now being called into question, and many are wrongly advocating that “sex” should be redefined to include “gender identity.”
In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that an employer who fires an individual for identifying as gay or transgender discriminates based on “sex” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was a new expansion of what Title VII meant and covered. The Biden administration then incorrectly sought to expand the Court’s ruling beyond employment discrimination and apply it to Title IX, which covers educational programs like sports, showers, and locker rooms.
But it is clear from the text of Title IX (as it is in the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that sex meant biological sex, male and female, and that the government can sometimes take a person’s sex into account to ensure equal opportunities. For example, Title IX allows schools in some cases to change “from being an institution which admits only students of one sex to being an institution which admits students of both sexes.”
Not only do provisions like this speak of “the” other sex or “both sexes,” rather than “another” sex or “all sexes,” but they also use terms like “father-son” and “mother-daughter” which are rooted in biology. Title IX says nothing about gender identity.
Alliance Defending Freedom strongly opposes any effort to redefine sex in federal regulations inconsistent with the text of Title IX itself for several reasons:
1. It lacks legal authority
Redefining “sex discrimination” is not authorized by Title IX’s text or Supreme Court precedent. Title IX deals with sex, not gender identity.
Likewise, the Bostock decision mentioned above does not require reinterpreting “sex” under Title IX. The Court there held that firing someone merely for identifying as gay or transgender violates Title VII. But that decision does not equate sex and gender identity and does not make it illegal for officials to consider sex when necessary to provide equal opportunities, like when officials provide sex-designated showers, locker rooms, restrooms, and sports to protect people’s privacy, safety, and fairness.
In fact, the Supreme Court in the Bostock decision explicitly rejected any application outside of the context of hiring and firing employees under Title VII when it said,
The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, 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.
2. It jeopardizes the privacy of women and girls
Redefining “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity” allows males who identify as female to enter women’s and girls’ private spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and overnight accommodations during school trips. This puts the privacy and safety of women in jeopardy—and the issue is not just hypothetical.
ADF represented Adaleia Cross, a female athlete who was sexually harassed by a male student she was forced to share a locker room with and compete against. Adaleia challenged the Biden administration’s rule changes alongside six states, including Tennessee and West Virginia. And in January 2025, a federal district court ruled in Adaleia’s favor and rejected the rule changes.
3. It hurts female athletes
Redefining “sex discrimination” undermines fairness in women’s sports and diminishes women’s privacy and safety. ADF has represented multiple female athletes like Selina Soule and Chelsea Mitchell who have lost to male athletes in women’s sporting events.
In West Virginia, former collegiate athlete Lainey Armistead has intervened to defend a state law designed to ensure equal opportunities for women and girls in sports by making sure they are not forced to compete against males.
The Biden administration claimed its rule changes did not apply to sports, but it simultaneously argued in State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. that men who identify as women should be able to compete in women’s sports under Title IX.
After a district court upheld West Virginia’s law as constitutional, an appellate court temporarily stopped the state from enforcing its law against a male athlete who identifies as female. The ruling has allowed that male student to displace over 300 female athletes in track and field events, which has prevented some girls from competing in conference championship meets. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey’s office, alongside ADF, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in July 2025, the High Court announced it would hear the case.
Ignoring the real biological differences between males and females harms women and girls, who lose the ability to compete fairly; are exposed to unsafe competition; and miss out on athletic opportunities, public recognition, and scholarship opportunities.
4. It violates freedoms of speech and religion
Redefining “sex” to include “gender identity” threatens to censor and compel speech, trample religious exercise, and imperil the educational mission of schools nationwide.
ADF has defended multiple individuals who were punished simply for expressing (or choosing not to express) beliefs about sex and gender.
- When he was in seventh grade, Liam Morrison was removed from class for wearing a T-shirt that said, “There are only two genders.” School officials told him he must remove the shirt, and when he declined, he was sent home for the day. Officials later prevented Liam from wearing a shirt with the message, “There are censored genders.” ADF filed a lawsuit on Liam’s behalf, but unfortunately, a federal district court and appellate court both failed to protect his free speech.
- Likewise, when “sex” is redefined to include “gender identity,” a speaker who declines to use pronouns inconsistent with a person’s sex could be charged with similar offenses. In 2021, ADF successfully defended Dr. Nicholas Meriwether in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit after his employer, Shawnee State University, punished him for “discrimination” for declining to refer to a male student as a woman. As a Christian, Dr. Meriwether knew it would be harmful to lie to students by using pronouns that did not match their biological sex. But redefining “sex” to include “gender identity” could force Dr. Meriwether and other professors and teachers to lie in this way or face government punishment.
More opportunities to protect women and girls
The federal district court’s ruling in Adaleia’s case, State of Tennessee v. Cardona, was a massive win for women and girls across the country. It struck down the Biden administration’s rule changes nationwide, preventing the federal government from enforcing them anywhere.
In addition, when President Donald Trump took office, he quickly took action to reinforce Title IX’s protections for women and girls. President Trump signed one executive order declaring that the term “sex” in federal law refers to “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female,” and he signed another instructing the Secretary of Education and the U.S. Attorney General to ensure Title IX-covered schools and institutions no longer allow males into women’s sports or locker rooms.
Still, women and girls in some states are unjustly losing medals, podium spots, public recognition, and the opportunity to compete when males take their places. For example, since the appellate court in State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. allowed a male athlete to compete against females, young women and girls have been displaced over 700 times. Those are 700 opportunities that women have lost out on forever.
When the Supreme Court hears this case, it has a chance to declare that male athletes aren’t permitted to steal opportunities from female athletes under Title IX.
Conclusion
We are all equal, but we aren’t all the same. Title IX was premised upon the reality that men and women are different and that these differences matter.
When biology is ignored, and words like “sex” lose their meaning, it is women and girls who bear the brunt of that mistake.
Title IX should remain a law that serves to protect opportunities and safety for women and girls.
Related Articles
