This bill amends section 901 of Title IX by inserting new statutory definitions for “female,” “male,” “sex,” and “sex‑segregated,” and by adding a non‑interpretation clause that restricts the Secretary of Education from using Title IX to prohibit—or to make federal funding contingent on forgoing—sex‑segregated spaces and programs. The text defines female and male by reference to reproductive systems that produce eggs or sperm, respectively, and labels sex as “biologically determined.”
The change matters to educational institutions, student groups, athletics programs, and civil‑rights offices because it converts contested interpretive questions about gender identity and single‑sex spaces into statutory definitions and a clear limitation on federal enforcement. Schools that want to maintain or restore sex‑segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, athletic teams, or classes would gain a statutory backstop against Department of Education conditions tied to eliminating sex segregation; advocates for gender‑identity inclusion will face new legal and operational headwinds at federally funded institutions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds subsections (d) and (e) to 20 U.S.C. §1681, defining “female,” “male,” “sex,” and “sex‑segregated,” and then states that Title IX cannot be read to authorize the Secretary of Education to require institutions to forgo sex‑segregated spaces or programs or to condition funding on such forfeitures.
Who It Affects
All recipients of Title IX funds—public and private elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions—and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Secondary effects reach athletic associations, campus housing administrators, and health/PE program directors.
Why It Matters
By converting policy questions about gender identity and single‑sex accommodations into statutory definitions and a funding‑condition ban, the bill constrains federal regulatory action and shifts the dispute to institutions, states, and courts about how to treat transgender and intersex students in sex‑segregated contexts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends Title IX by adding a standalone definitions subsection and a follow‑on clause that limits how the statute may be construed. The definitions provision strings together biologically framed descriptions: “female” and “male” are defined by reference to reproductive systems that, at some point, produce eggs or sperm, and “sex” is defined as referring to either male or female as biologically determined.
The text also defines “sex‑segregated” as limited to or separated by sex. That language attempts to fix the meaning of sex in statute rather than leaving it to agency regulation or case law.
After the definitions the bill adds two prohibitions on how Title IX may be read and enforced. First, it bars any construction of Title IX that would authorize the Secretary of Education to prohibit—or to make receipt of Title IX funds contingent on an institution forgoing—sex‑segregated spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms.
Second, it bars using Title IX to prohibit or condition funding on an institution forgoing sex‑segregated athletic or academic programs. Both clauses target agency actions that would require institutions to eliminate single‑sex facilities or programs as a condition of federal funding.Operationally, the bill does not dictate how institutions must organize spaces or teams; instead it erects a statutory limit on federal enforcement and conditionality.
Institutions that want to maintain or adopt single‑sex policies would have stronger arguments against Department of Education enforcement requiring inclusive measures; conversely, institutions that want to allow access based on gender identity are not prohibited from doing so by this text but would no longer be able to argue that Title IX requires them to remove sex‑segregation as a condition of funding. The definitions’ phrasing — including carveouts for congenital anomalies or “intentional or unintentional disruption” — raises practical questions about records, medical evidence, and administrative processes for applying the definitions in real school settings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts new subsections (d) and (e) into 20 U.S.C. §1681 (Section 901 of Title IX) to add statutory definitions and limits on interpretation.
It defines “female” and “male” by reference to reproductive systems that at some point produce eggs or sperm, and defines “sex” as referring to either male or female as biologically determined.
It defines “sex‑segregated” to mean limited to or separated by sex, a broad phrase that the Department and courts would have to interpret in context.
Section 901(e)(1) says Title IX may not be construed to allow the Secretary to prohibit—or to condition funding on an institution forgoing—sex‑segregated spaces, explicitly listing bathrooms and locker rooms.
Section 901(e)(2) extends the same bar to sex‑segregated athletic or academic programs, preventing the Secretary from using funding conditions to force integrated programs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory definitions of female, male, sex, and sex‑segregated
This provision supplies definitions intended to govern all of Title IX. Defining female and male by reference to reproductive systems that produce eggs or sperm anchors sex to physical reproductive characteristics rather than to gender identity, social role, or legal status. The clause includes exceptions for congenital anomalies and “intentional or unintentional disruption,” language that is atypical in statutory drafting and likely to prompt questions about scope (for example, whether someone undergoing medical transition fits any exception). The practical effect is to standardize one biological standard across Title IX rather than leaving the term “sex” to agency guidance or court interpretation.
Prohibition on conditioning funding or enforcement regarding sex‑segregated spaces
This subsection prohibits construing Title IX to authorize the Secretary to require institutions to eliminate sex‑segregated physical spaces or to make federal funding contingent on forgoing such spaces. The bill names bathrooms and locker rooms as examples, which means the Department of Education would lack clear statutory authority to mandate inclusive restroom or locker room policies as a Title IX funding condition. Practically, recipients can maintain single‑sex facilities without fear that Title IX funding will be withheld for that reason, unless another federal law applies.
Prohibition on conditioning funding or enforcement regarding sex‑segregated programs
This subsection extends the funding‑condition bar to athletic and academic programs that are sex‑segregated. That protects single‑sex teams, classes, and competitions from being singled out for Title IX‑based funding penalties tied to integration policies. Athletic governing bodies and campus administrators will still face sport‑specific eligibility rules and state laws, but the Department could not leverage Title IX funding to force the elimination of sex‑segregated programs under the statutory text enacted here.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Educational institutions that prefer or maintain single‑sex facilities and programs — they gain a statutory defense against Department of Education conditioning of Title IX funds on eliminating sex segregation.
- Students and parents seeking single‑sex spaces for privacy, religious, or developmental reasons — the bill reduces the risk that federal funding rules would compel schools to remove those options.
- Single‑sex athletic and academic programs (including some private and religious schools) — those programs would be less vulnerable to federal enforcement actions aimed at mandating integration.
- State education agencies and legislators favoring state‑level control over sex‑segregation policies — the bill limits federal leverage and shifts policy space back toward states and institutions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Transgender and nonbinary students seeking access to facilities and teams consistent with their gender identity — the statutory definitions and funding bars create greater legal and administrative obstacles to securing inclusive access under Title IX.
- Institutions that want or have adopted gender‑identity‑based access policies — they lose a clear Title IX enforcement rationale to defend such policies against opposition and may face increased litigation at state or private levels.
- Department of Education (Office for Civil Rights) — the agency’s ability to resolve complaints by using Title IX funding conditions to require integrated policies would be constrained, complicating enforcement strategy.
- Athletic associations and intercollegiate sports programs — they may face conflicting obligations between sport‑governing bodies, state laws, and institutional policies without a federal uniform standard on eligibility tied to gender identity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting sex‑segregated spaces and programs on the basis of a biologically anchored definition of sex, and recognizing and accommodating students whose gender identity or sex characteristics do not fit that binary biological model; the bill secures one side (institutional control and single‑sex options) at the likely cost of constraining federal remedies and accommodations for transgender and intersex students.
The bill creates immediate statutory clarity by anchoring sex to a biological reproductive standard, but that clarity is not administratively tidy. The definitions’ reference to individuals who “would have, but for a congenital anomaly, historical accident, or intentional or unintentional disruption” introduces ambiguous factual inquiries—who decides whether a medical history counts as an exception, what documentation is required, and how institutions handle privacy concerns.
Applying those definitions in daily school operations could require medical records or determinations that institutions are poorly equipped to make.
Legally, the text narrows the Secretary’s Title IX leverage but does not resolve conflicts with other federal laws, state statutes, or contractual obligations. Because the bill acts by restricting a federal agency’s ability to condition funds, it reroutes disputes into other venues: state courts, private litigation, or alternative federal claims (for example, equal protection or disability statutes) that may produce different outcomes.
Institutions with mixed obligations—federally funded but subject to state laws or athletic‑association rules—will face compliance trade‑offs and potential litigation over which rules govern in particular contexts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.