The case was dismissed. So, are they going to file again or just keep defying and losing the money?

Anonymous wrote:https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-arlington-school-lawsuits-title-xi-funding-freeze-suspends-bathroom-locker-room-virginia-federal-court-judge-school-court-document-fourth-circuit-appeals-supreme-court

Was this house counsel or outside counsel that FCPS used to get the case tossed.

Just wasting time and money that could be used for instruction or mold remediation. SC is going to side with 11th circuit en banc ruling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-arlington-school-lawsuits-title-xi-funding-freeze-suspends-bathroom-locker-room-virginia-federal-court-judge-school-court-document-fourth-circuit-appeals-supreme-court

A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, dismissed FCPS lawsuit against Dept. of Ed on a jurisdictional issue.

Virtue signaling is costing our poor kids. So much for our FCPS concern for "equity."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/09/04/virginia-schools-transgender-policies-trump-administration/?commentID=70f039a4-07b2-44f8-9672-3d0a24fab223

It said case was filed in court of Eastern district of Virginia.
I read the article quickly, did not see an expected timeline.

My guess: quickly goes to Supreme Court.

Fairfax Times has another article on the Hayfield issue. One line in there got my attention. It said that the inhouse counsel (Foster) told Reid they would win the Hayfield suit. Wonder what he said on this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is the assumption here that segregating bathrooms by gender identity will reduce bullying as trans-gendered women won't be bullied in the men's bathroom.

What about trans-gendered men? Is there any reason to believe they will be less bullied by the same men that bully trans-gendered women? In an environment where bathrooms are segregated by gender identity, will trans-gendered men be forced to use the men's bathroom?

Good question. Women's restrooms have stalls. Stalls are also present in male restrooms. APS has a larger locker room issue since high schools have pools and 4 years of aquatics instruction as part of the PE POS, program of studies, 2 elementary and 2 high school. FX/FCPS dumped the issue on Bryan Hill for an interview. Hill noted the difference in POS and school board owned sites. ARL chose to prosecute for indecent exposure at public and private sites. FX chose not to prosecute. Different reactions by ARL and FX on new indecent exposure incidents.

Title ix and sports. What actually happened in CA was removal of opportunities for bio females and it was acknowledged only at the states level for track and field. Top of the competitive interscholastic sports food chain. Sports like volleyball have defined numbers on the court and roster and it's not explicitly listed as a contact sport under Title ix.

https://www.cifstate.org/news/2025_tf_statement_5.27.25
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/us/ab-hernandez-trump-california-funding-wwk

The language in 2024 Title ix § 106.41 Athletics. caused the ID F to have an advantage over the cis females which spawned the CA pilot program which did nothing to assist cis F prior to the state ultimate competition. FCPS had to add male volleyball since no male volleyball meant under Title ix the guys could try out for the female team.

Wait. What? Is this actually true?

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-106/subpart-D/section-106.41

"§ 106.41 Athletics.

(a) General. No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.

(b) Separate teams. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/42549609/inside-san-jose-state-university-2024-volleyball-season-gender-fairness-safety
Note physiological studies.

Any rulings issued yet on FCPS court case?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is the assumption here that segregating bathrooms by gender identity will reduce bullying as trans-gendered women won't be bullied in the men's bathroom.

What about trans-gendered men? Is there any reason to believe they will be less bullied by the same men that bully trans-gendered women? In an environment where bathrooms are segregated by gender identity, will trans-gendered men be forced to use the men's bathroom?

Good question. Women's restrooms have stalls. Stalls are also present in male restrooms. APS has a larger locker room issue since high schools have pools and 4 years of aquatics instruction as part of the PE POS, program of studies, 2 elementary and 2 high school. FX/FCPS dumped the issue on Bryan Hill for an interview. Hill noted the difference in POS and school board owned sites. ARL chose to prosecute for indecent exposure at public and private sites. FX chose not to prosecute. Different reactions by ARL and FX on new indecent exposure incidents.

Title ix and sports. What actually happened in CA was removal of opportunities for bio females and it was acknowledged only at the states level for track and field. Top of the competitive interscholastic sports food chain. Sports like volleyball have defined numbers on the court and roster and it's not explicitly listed as a contact sport under Title ix.

https://www.cifstate.org/news/2025_tf_statement_5.27.25
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/us/ab-hernandez-trump-california-funding-wwk

The language in 2024 Title ix § 106.41 Athletics. caused the ID F to have an advantage over the cis females which spawned the CA pilot program which did nothing to assist cis F prior to the state ultimate competition. FCPS had to add male volleyball since no male volleyball meant under Title ix the guys could try out for the female team.

Wait. What? Is this actually true?

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention having both 'sex' and 'gender identity' as protected classes would be in conflict as they are in the state law. If one protected class, gender identity, can pick their choice of another protected class, sex, then they both cannot exist. Because that is the practical effect of gender identity.

And since 'gender identity' is about how one subjectively feels (deemed even to be fluid), it is not a practical protected class nor a way to go about making laws.

IO think you can make gender identity a protected class in that you cannot discriminate against someone because of their gender identity even if it is not an inborn trait.
Much like you can make religion a protected class and i can change my religion daily.

What I can't do is impose my religion on you.

I can no more force my way into your locker room because my religion demands it than because my gender identity demands it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we stay on topic here? You dance with the one that brings you.

Right now, the federal government is withholding funds for our poor children so that FCPS can "protect" our trans children.

I believe the Supreme Court will support the federal government. So, FCPS is spending lots of $$$ on legal feeds and will likely lose.

No matter what your politics are, it seems to me that this is not due diligence of our funds.

And, I looked up the Fourth Circuit judges that ruled on the Grimm case. It was a 2 to 1 decision. So, this is definitely thin ice for FCPS.
My prediction: Supreme Court 8-1 or 7-2 max.

The supreme court hopefully supports the LAW. And if they do the school districts win.

lol

Yes. They will likely support the 11th circuit ruling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we stay on topic here? You dance with the one that brings you.

Right now, the federal government is withholding funds for our poor children so that FCPS can "protect" our trans children.

I believe the Supreme Court will support the federal government. So, FCPS is spending lots of $$$ on legal feeds and will likely lose.

No matter what your politics are, it seems to me that this is not due diligence of our funds.

And, I looked up the Fourth Circuit judges that ruled on the Grimm case. It was a 2 to 1 decision. So, this is definitely thin ice for FCPS.
My prediction: Supreme Court 8-1 or 7-2 max.

The supreme court hopefully supports the LAW. And if they do the school districts win.

lol

It’s a gift to the Republicans in the upcoming state elections, that’s for sure. This School Board has never given a crap about any kids at our local public school except the very small number of transgender ones.

Anonymous wrote:Can we stay on topic here? You dance with the one that brings you.

Right now, the federal government is withholding funds for our poor children so that FCPS can "protect" our trans children.

I believe the Supreme Court will support the federal government. So, FCPS is spending lots of $$$ on legal feeds and will likely lose.

No matter what your politics are, it seems to me that this is not due diligence of our funds.

And, I looked up the Fourth Circuit judges that ruled on the Grimm case. It was a 2 to 1 decision. So, this is definitely thin ice for FCPS.
My prediction: Supreme Court 8-1 or 7-2 max.

Another self own by liberals. Looking forward to it.

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention having both 'sex' and 'gender identity' as protected classes would be in conflict as they are in the state law. If one protected class, gender identity, can pick their choice of another protected class, sex, then they both cannot exist. Because that is the practical effect of gender identity.

And since 'gender identity' is about how one subjectively feels (deemed even to be fluid), it is not a practical protected class nor a way to go about making laws.

+1

This is a very confusing issue and needs to be addressed for what it is--not for what people think or want it to be.

Anonymous wrote:There is the assumption here that segregating bathrooms by gender identity will reduce bullying as trans-gendered women won't be bullied in the men's bathroom.

What about trans-gendered men? Is there any reason to believe they will be less bullied by the same men that bully trans-gendered women? In an environment where bathrooms are segregated by gender identity, will trans-gendered men be forced to use the men's bathroom?

Good question. Women's restrooms have stalls. Stalls are also present in male restrooms. APS has a larger locker room issue since high schools have pools and 4 years of aquatics instruction as part of the PE POS, program of studies, 2 elementary and 2 high school. FX/FCPS dumped the issue on Bryan Hill for an interview. Hill noted the difference in POS and school board owned sites. ARL chose to prosecute for indecent exposure at public and private sites. FX chose not to prosecute. Different reactions by ARL and FX on new indecent exposure incidents.

Title ix and sports. What actually happened in CA was removal of opportunities for bio females and it was acknowledged only at the states level for track and field. Top of the competitive interscholastic sports food chain. Sports like volleyball have defined numbers on the court and roster and it's not explicitly listed as a contact sport under Title ix.

https://www.cifstate.org/news/2025_tf_statement_5.27.25
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/us/ab-hernandez-trump-california-funding-wwk

The language in 2024 Title ix § 106.41 Athletics. caused the ID F to have an advantage over the cis females which spawned the CA pilot program which did nothing to assist cis F prior to the state ultimate competition. FCPS had to add male volleyball since no male volleyball meant under Title ix the guys could try out for the female team.

Not to mention having both 'sex' and 'gender identity' as protected classes would be in conflict as they are in the state law. If one protected class, gender identity, can pick their choice of another protected class, sex, then they both cannot exist. Because that is the practical effect of gender identity.

And since 'gender identity' is about how one subjectively feels (deemed even to be fluid), it is not a practical protected class nor a way to go about making laws.