GOP Aims to Codify SCOTUS Ruling on Definition of Sex

House Republicans advanced a bill Tuesday that they say will protect female students by clarifying Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination, and defining the word “sex.”

Specifically, the new bill—known as the Title IX Clarification Act of 2026—would add language to existing law that says, “The term ‘sex’ refers to an individual’s biologically determined sex, as either male or female.” It then goes on to add that the term “female” “means an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a congenital anomaly … large gamete (ova) for fertilization.” It defines male as someone who naturally has small gamete, or sperm.

The Education and Workforce Committee’s 18-to-15 vote, which followed party lines, came just weeks after the Supreme Court upheld state laws that ban transgender athletes from competing on teams that match their gender identity.

In the majority opinion, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.” The high court’s ruling did not, however, require all states to ban gender-affirming inclusion in athletics. It also did not say the definition of sex as biologically determined must apply to all other parts of Title IX.

Republicans said Tuesday the bill just codifies the Supreme Court’s ruling, but Democrats argued it goes a step beyond—not only would it strip transgender students of the ability to participate in gender-affirming athletics, they say, but it would also erase their access to other Title IX protections, involving from discrimination in admissions and counseling as well as sexual harassment.

“Let’s call this bill what it really is: the Bully Empowerment Act,” Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat, said during Tuesday’s meeting. “It will empower the bully to harass LGBTQ+ students just for being who they are … It will empower schools to ignore the rights of the very students they are supposed to protect.”

Protections for LGBTQ+ students under Title IX have shifted over the last decade as administrations change. Under President Obama, the Education Department said that Title IX barred discrimination based on a student’s gender identity, including transgender status. The first Trump administration withdrew the Obama-era guidance, saying it interpreted “sex” to mean “biological sex, male and female,” adding that LGBTQ+ students were not expressly included in protections under Title IX. President Biden then reinstated the broader, more inclusive definition of sex-based discrimination, but a federal judge vacated those changes. The second Trump administration has since sought to roll back rights of trans students and is investigating institutions that allow trans students to use facilities or compete in a sport that aligns with their gender identity.

Title IX legal experts agree that the bill goes beyond the Supreme Court’s ruling, but they differ on the amount of change it will actually cause.

Some say it could effectively erase LGBTQ+ students, particularly transgender students, from Title IX, making it appear as though they are not protected and creating more confusion for colleges that are trying to follow the law. But they argue that discrimination based on gender identity and sexuality was barred by Title IX well before the Biden administration’s 2024 regulations said so. So, in their view, LGBTQ+ students are still protected at the federal level, regardless of how this new bill defines sex.

Others, however, say that since the 2024 regulations were vacated, queer and transgender students are only protected from sexual harassment, not general discrimination based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. As a result, some experts don’t think much will change, even if the bill is passed. But the legislation could effectively block future administrations from reinstating those protections.

If passed, the Title IX Clarification Act of 2026 appears to make the murky waters of Title IX implementation even murkier.

“This just opens up more questions,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center.

Debates over the intent and potential impacts of the bill took center stage 30 minutes into Tuesday’s meeting, as Rep. Jahana Hayes, a Connecticut Democrat who opposed the bill, and Rep. Mary Miller, the Illinois Republican who’s co-sponsoring it, broke out into a yelling match.

Hayes noted that “no court decision is going to stop a young person from being gay” and then asked Miller, “Are you proposing that educators, programs, federal funding [and] legislation just erases these young people and say that we don’t have an obligation to keep them safe as well?”

Miller responded, “We should be honest with our children and tell them the truth. This is not about gay. This is about trans men [sic] going into girls’ safe spaces … You guys are a bunch of liars. You’re deceivers.”

The representatives began yelling at each other as Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the committee, banged his gavel. The committee temporarily adjourned after Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member, moved to strike Miller’s words.

When the meeting resumed, Miller’s original words were withdrawn, but the representative maintained that the bill is not about stripping LGBTQ+ students of Title IX protections, as Hayes stated, but about protecting female spaces.

Walberg later added that “[LGBTQ+ individuals] are not left unprotected in this legislation.” In fact, “They’re not mentioned really in this legislation, except that we define male and female according to biological science,” he said.

Scott countered by entering into the record a news release from the bill’s sponsor that claimed the legislation “prevents future administrations from reinterpreting the law to include gender identity or sexual orientation without congressional approval.”

The bill now advances to the House floor.