Redefining ‘Sex’ in Federal Law Harms Women and Children

Under Title IX, Alanna Smith is challenging a Connecticut policy that allows males who identify as female to compete in women’s sports.

In 2021, the Biden administration released executive orders instructing federal agencies to reinterpret federal laws and regulations that prohibit “sex discrimination” to include “gender identity.” Then in 2024, the administration published final rules formalizing this unlawful redefinition in various federal laws.

This radical redefinition of “sex” threatens the fundamental rights of every American, especially women and children. From privacy to sports to health care, our laws should recognize and respect that women and men are biologically different—and that these differences matter.

Video

Defending Common Sense

Alliance Defending Freedom is filing lawsuits across the country challenging these new regulations. Each of these cases highlights the broad damage that the Biden administration’s attempted redefinition of “sex” is causing.

Title IX

Title IX was designed to protect women from discrimination and provide them with equal opportunities. But changing the definition of “sex” in Title IX guts equal opportunities for women, including in women’s sports, and threatens the privacy, safety and free speech of teachers and students.

Carroll Independent School District v. United States Department of Education

A Texas school district is challenging the Biden administration over the government’s radical Title IX reinterpretation that jeopardizes students’ privacy, safety, and fairness.

Sisters Aubrey and Avalon Simpson smile and hug

State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education

Multiple states (KS, AK, UT, WY), ADF, and private groups of parents, students, and female athletes are challenging the Biden administration’s attempt to rewrite Title IX. ADF is representing Female Athletes United and middle-school student Katie Rowland.

State of Arkansas v. U.S. Department of Education

Alongside six states (AR, IA, MO, ND, SD, NE), ADF filed a lawsuit on behalf of Amelia Ford, a female athlete who wants to protect women’s privacy and safety, stand up for free speech, and secure fairness for women’s sports.

Cardona v. State of Tennessee

After several states (TN, KY, OH, WV, IN, VA) sued, ADF intervened on behalf of Christian Educators and Adaleia Cross, a female athlete who has experienced unfair competition, loss of privacy in the locker room, and sexual harassment by a male athlete who identifies as female.

U.S. Department of Education v. State of Louisiana

ADF is representing a Louisiana school board to challenge the Biden administration’s attempted rewrite of Title IX, which will force schools to impose widespread harms on young people and deny free speech on campus.

Other Title IX Cases

Even prior to the Biden administration’s Title IX rule change, ADF has been defending women’s sports, privacy, safety, and free speech. In 2019, ADF was the first group to file a case against policies that allow men who identify as women to compete in women’s sports and take away women’s right to fair competition. We’ve appealed two of those cases to the Supreme Court: B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education and Hecox v. Little.

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

Former collegiate soccer player Lainey Armistead is helping defend West Virginia’s women’s sports law to protect equal opportunity, fairness, and safety for women.

Hecox v. Little

The ACLU is challenging Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, but two former female college athletes are stepping in to defend the law and ensure that women have a chance to compete and win in their own sports.

Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools

Four female athletes are standing up against a Connecticut policy that allows males to compete in women’s sports.

Roe v. Critchfield

Idaho SB 1100 ensures that intimate spaces in K-12 public schools are designated by sex. But activists sued, saying males who identify as female must be allowed into women’s only spaces and vice versa under Title IX. ADF is representing Idaho to defend its law.

State of Tennessee v. United States Department of Education

Twenty state attorneys general are challenging the Biden administration’s initial guidance documents attempting to reinterpret Title IX. ADF intervened on behalf of the Association of Christian Schools International and a female athlete in Arkansas.

Doe v. Horne

In 2022, Arizona enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act to ensure safety and fairness in women’s sports. Two males who wish to compete in female athletics are challenging the law. ADF filed an amicus brief defending the law.

D.N. v. DeSantis

A male athlete challenged Florida’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which designates women’s sports for women. ADF filed an amicus brief on behalf of a female athlete, defending the law as consistent with Title IX.

Neese v. Becerra

Two physicians are challenging the Biden administration’s attempt to rewrite Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act by reinterpreting the part of Section 1557 that incorporates Title IX to include gender identity. ADF filed an amicus brief for female athletes, explaining that Title IX protects women’s sports.

A.M. v. Indianapolis Public Schools

Female athletes in Indiana scored a victory after the ACLU withdrew its lawsuit challenging a state law that protects athletic opportunities for girls. ADF filed an amicus brief in defense of Indiana’s law.

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act

Changing the definition of “sex discrimination” in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act would force medical professionals and insurance providers to perform or pay for harmful “gender transition” procedures or face severe financial consequences.

These dangerous procedures can have lifelong and irreversible consequences, including sterilization. For many health care providers, performing these procedures would go against their medical judgment, religious beliefs, and consciences.

State of Missouri v. Becerra

ADF, together with Missouri, Utah, and five other states, is suing the Biden administration for adopting a rule that forces medical professionals and insurance providers to perform or pay for harmful “gender-transition” procedures or face severe financial consequences.

McComb Children’s Clinic v. Becerra

New regulations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services force McComb Children’s Clinic to lose federal funding or risk severe penalties unless it provides, promotes, or refers for harmful “gender transition” procedures on minors.

State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The state of Florida, alongside the Catholic Medical Association represented by ADF, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after the agency adopted new Section 1557 rules requiring doctors to harm their patients.

Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

A federal court ruled that the Biden administration cannot force non-profit and for-profit religious employers and healthcare providers to pay for or perform harmful “gender transition” surgeries, procedures, counseling, and treatments.