Texas will not have to legalize sex-change procedures for children to receive federal funds nor adopt gender identity policies for the workplace.
In a statement released Tuesday, Attorney General Ken Paxton declared victory in a lawsuit to stop “woke” federal agency mandates concerning sexual orientation and gender after the Biden administration declined to appeal a federal court’s ruling, making the decision permanent.
“Biden’s failure to appeal by the deadline means this victory is now secure. Texas employers and employees will not be forced to have workplaces infused with woke gender theories, and Texas children will be safe from the Biden Administration’s so-called sexual orientation and gender identity agenda,” Paxton added.
‘Gender-affirming Care’ Equals ‘Child Abuse’
In February, Paxton issued a nonbinding legal opinion that gender-affirming care was child abuse, which opened the door for Republican Gov. Greg Abbott to direct the state’s child welfare agency to investigate parents.
Court orders blocked most investigations but could resume if state law changes.
Paxton’s opinion equating gender transitioning with child abuse led to the lawsuit against the Biden administration.
On Oct. 1, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who presides over the Northern District of Texas, struck down the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) attempt to block Texas from receiving federal funds unless the state changed its child-abuse laws to allow sex-change procedures on children.
The court’s ruling also blocked an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requirement that Texas adopt policies for state employees on bathroom, locker room, shower, and pronoun use based on gender identity rather than biological sex.
Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller supported Paxton’s challenge against the EEOC by providing evidence the rule conflicted with his agency’s authority to set reasonable workplace policies.
The trial court found the two agencies acted on similarly flawed reasoning. According to the court, the agencies issued guidance without following proper procedures and exceeded the bounds of the laws they wanted to implement.
The Biden administration has pushed to incorporate gender ideology into a broad range of government regulations and programs based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock vs. Clayton decision.
In Bostock vs. Clayton, the court held that Title VII prohibited employees from being discriminated against based on gender identity and sexual orientation. However, the landmark case was narrow in scope, with Justice Gorsuch, who wrote for the majority opinion, declining to expand the protection to all conduct of LGBT individuals.
Gorsuch wrote that Title VII did not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.
Paxton’s office stated in October saying the Biden administration’s positions on gender and sexual orientation rules stem from “misinterpretation, misapplication, and misstatement of statutory and case law.”
In Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling, he stated that the Biden administration misread Bostock by melding “status” and “conduct” into a catchall-protected class.
The district court ruling cited cases involving Bostock, which did not establish a new or separate protected class but clarified the scope of sex classification in current law. Likewise, transgender individuals are not a protected class on their own.
Kacsmaryk noted in his opinion that the Biden administration attorneys would “openly mock” citations from Texas attorneys for citing 30-year-old law review articles and 20th-century French philosophers yet incorrectly argue that status and conduct melded in the Title VII case.
Patterson said Texas is poised to take a strong stand against doctors and parents who facilitate gender modification for children. However, similar bills did not pass during the last legislative session.
In his bill, they could be charged with child abuse. Administering, supplying, or consenting to the administration of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgery for gender transitioning or reassignment would be outlawed under HB 436, Patterson said.
Likewise, HB 42, filed by state Rep. Bryan Slaton (R-Royse City), would expand the child abuse statute to include gender-affirming care under the guidance of a doctor or mental health provider.
HB 112, filed by state Rep. Steve Toth (R-Woodlands), would bar health care providers from offering gender-switching hormones and procedures for children. Violations could result in a second-degree felony. The same language was introduced in House Bill 41, which would withhold professional liability insurance from providers who offer gender-changing treatments.
Advocates for gender transitioning for children say it improves their mental health and reduces thoughts of suicide, though some studies suggest the opposite.
Most medical associations advocate treating gender dysphoria, the distress someone feels when confused about gender identity, which has drawn criticism from conservatives.
Teens start transitioning socially by changing their pronouns, hairstyle, and clothing. Some children then seek puberty blockers and cross-hormones to feel like the opposite sex, which could lead to surgery and sterilization.
