By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a federal investigation into a transgender volleyball player, the U.S. Department of Education has ordered San José State University to comply with Title IX regulations within 10 days. The university is required to issue a public statement affirming biology-based definitions of sex and separating sports and facilities based on biological sex. The university must also restore athletic records, issue apologies to affected female athletes, and acknowledge the harm caused by allowing a male athlete to compete in women’s volleyball. Failure to comply could result in enforcement action, including a Justice Department lawsuit and loss of federal funding.
Read the original article here
The Department of Education’s finding that San Jose State violated Title IX regarding a transgender volleyball player, Blaire Fleming, is a complex situation. The player, who competed for three seasons after transferring, became the focus of protests from opponents, particularly in 2024. The core of the matter seems to be whether the school followed Title IX regulations appropriately.
The question of whether San Jose State’s actions were compliant with Title IX is critical, as it concerns a federal law designed to protect against sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funding. Considering the timing, it’s worth thinking about the legal interpretations in place during Fleming’s time on the team. If the school adhered to the guidelines as they existed when she was playing, retroactive punishment would raise significant legal and ethical concerns. The concept of not being punished retroactively is deeply ingrained in legal systems, like the ex post facto clause.
The political climate surrounding this issue adds another layer. Some people feel that the focus on transgender athletes is being used to distract from other, more pervasive issues of inequity in women’s sports. The fact that the Department of Education is involved is ironic to some, particularly since some believe the department itself is in danger of being dismantled. Some are asking, why is this issue being highlighted when other Title IX violations, like disparities in resources and opportunities between boys’ and girls’ teams, often get overlooked? The claim is that a single transgender athlete is receiving disproportionate attention compared to systemic issues that impact a broader population of female athletes. The argument goes that the real concern should be on the epidemic of violence against women.
There is a sentiment that the debate surrounding transgender athletes in women’s sports is often driven by political motivations. Some see it as a tool to galvanize a certain demographic through the utilization of anti-transgender rhetoric. The idea being that it’s a way to mobilize people based on fears or discomfort surrounding gender identity, and to move the conversation towards removing the rights of a minority group.
The call for separate “open” categories in sports, where trans and intersex athletes could compete, has been presented as a potential solution. The thinking is that this approach could satisfy both those concerned about fairness in women’s sports and those who want to ensure inclusivity. While this approach is popular with some, others argue it doesn’t go far enough.
There’s a great deal of disagreement over how to balance the rights and opportunities of transgender athletes with the desire for fair competition in women’s sports. The public opinion is very divided. While some might not be driven by hate, there is a very real concern about the biological advantages that males, on average, have over females in sports. And many believe that a Department of Education investigation should focus on broader problems within the education system.
The potential for solutions like separate categories, the discussion can be brought back to the core values of both fairness and inclusion. Some, looking at the situation, are left feeling like these discussions are only ever brought up to diminish women’s sports, and that the ultimate goal is not about improving fairness but in harming transgender people. The question of whether the school’s response to Fleming’s participation was in line with Title IX is something that everyone should be focusing on.