According to the New York Post, the University of Southern California has adopted a policy banning men from certain workout areas. The plan, pushed by an LGBTQ+ group, is designed to prevent the presence of males from triggering women or non-binary students. It may, however, trigger a major legal challenge.
The group Student Assembly for Gender Empowerment (SAGE) demanded the new rule at the Lyon Center. SAGE bills itself as a “programming assembly and intersectional feminist organization under the student government, committed to uplifting all voices oppressed by the patriarchy.”
The Post quotes Mengze Wu heralding the move to end “male-dominated” spaces, adding:
“My past experiences with being in enclosed spaces where it’s very male-dominated have never been super pleasant. There tends to be this problem where I don’t get to take up a lot of space unless I really assert myself. And even then, I face a lot of hindrance in feeling completely comfortable.”
Other students said that barring men would protect her from always feeling “judged” by them.
The measure is likely to draw criticism and possible action from the Trump Administration. However, it is also discriminatory on the basis of gender. Men are being banned because their very identity or presence is viewed as offensive or disruptive. Imagine if USC took such exclusionary policies toward any other racial or gender group.
This is not the first such measure in higher education. Years ago, liberal educators embraced segregation as a positive tool for creating “safe spaces” and diversity zones, including women-only hours at gyms at Harvard and McGill.
Putting aside possible legal challenges, such segregation only further balkanizes higher education and reinforces the contested concept of “safe spaces” to protect students from other groups or divergent ideas. The identity group agenda is difficult to oppose in universities. To do so, one risks being labeled insensitive or, even worse, a force of male domination.
In the meantime, what will happen to Hanz and Franz who are just trying help?
Really, in our modern universities, there is no difference between left and far-left. anyone that doesn’t see that is whistling in the dark. Trump would have been a very slightly right of center dem in the past, and still perfectly acceptable to the then DNC; this is a straight up capture of our institutions, whereas before it was simply an influence, and that was actually fine in terms of compare and contrast.
But that is done. This is explicitly just the state of things. Expect nothing less going forward, and make your decisions very carefully. Everything hangs in the balance, and the idiots in NYC or Virginia that still just mindlessly follow along and then kvetch after the fact – that isn’t going to work. Not for anybody.
And just a small detail for the trolls and their attempts at impersonation: the mods, such as Darren, can most certainly see how we post and which credentials we use to do do. You are not clever by half; you are not clever at all. That they allow your nonsense speaks volumes to the actual commitment to freedom of speech here. The people behind the scenes know exactly who you are, every time you post something.
James,
Respectfully I have to disagree but only to a degree.
My sister is a registered Democrat and I would consider her a traditional liberal.
However, she even thinks the Democrat party has gone too woke, left, crazy. So much so, she wrote to the DNC and the Biden campaign that if they did not get back to their traditional roots, they would lose her vote and she would vote third party knowing full well that voting third party would not stand a chance but it would send a message to the DNC.
The people in her local Democrat party chapter, most of them think the same. But she has been told by a few that her thinking was “wrong.”
Unfortunately I think she will continue to vote Democrat unless they nominate someone really wacko, like AOC or like DSA.
Ah, yes, the trolls. They are as useful as a screen door on a submarine. The good professor does display his moral character by allowing them to crap all over his blog. Fortunately our comments are a good counter to theirs.
@James
The only one that can satisfy your security concerns is Inspector Clouseau.
How long was the time between the Boston Tea Party and the Revolutionary War?
Exactly how long did it take the American Revolutionaries to rid the battle space of craven milquetoasts?
Professor Turley,
How would this be any different from prohibiting women from using the facilities of the USC men’s football team?
Interesting question, but I don’t the the parallel totally works. Some college sports are played only by men. Some USC varsity sports are played only by women, such as softball and field hockey. If men are allowed into the facilities of those teams, then your question becomes more on-point.
If there were two gyms, one for men and one for lgbt I’d use the men’s gym because it’s safer. I’d change and shower at home.
I seriously don’t care about this anymore. Binary people, seriously … sometimes a person must give up sports. Safer.
Can anyone refresh my memory?
What was the reason, again, that the American Founders absolutely did not allow women, foreigners et al. to vote?
“We gave you a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
You didn’t.
“So, the lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”
– Richard Rowland, 1926
OT
I thought that Iranian missiles fired at Diego Garcia demonstrating that Iranian warheads could also reach Europe would wake European leaders and have them get behind the effort by the US and Israel to end the danger.
That didn’t happen. instead they have gotten even more obstructive.
I supposed at first that they didn’t comprehend their peril.
But now I wonder if they recognized the danger all too well and, after a few ugly hints from Iran to submit or be bombed, they chose the path of cowards.
That could explain much.
Macron, Starmer, Merz , et al would never be featured in an edition of Profiles in Courage.
European Unionistan
Yet they wish the US to protect them from a very weak Russia.
If they are forced to fight, will they wear ballerina footwear?
S. Meyer– A month or so ago I looked up militaries of several countries and discovered [and posted here] that Israel had a larger military than UK, Germany and France combined. It was hard to believe because my mind was full of the history of the massive armies and navies of WW I.
But it was true, in fact the true state was even more shocking than bare numbers suggested. I thought that the Royal Navy at least had two carriers and several nuclear subs, but they are all in port and undergoing long repairs. The UK could put only one of its several destroyers to sea, Dragon, after embarrassing delays and it had to return because of water problems.
At the Battle of Jutland Admiral Jellico commanded a massive fleet of battleships and Admiral Beaty commanded many battle cruisers, both with skilled crews. Now the Brits can barely get one malfunctioning destroyer out of port for only a little while. I imagine crew training has been neglected as well.
It is sad to see.
They cannot defend themselves. I am not sure they even want to defend themselves. They are erasing their achievements, their heroes and their history. Instead of Horatio at the bridge defending the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods they have Starmer writing memos and moving the portrait of Churchill to the basement.
They are embarrassed to be English.
Oh well, they won’t be much longer if this continues.
Did the UK lose its will? Its former colony, India, ranks higher.
S. Meyer– I think they are losing their sense of identity. They have been stripped, flailed, erased and abused by the same social infection that we see at work here. “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ has got to go!” And it is going and with it we go. There is nothing left to defend at the bridge; nothing behind us worth fighting for if the rot continues.
Some se it. Two former Ivy League professors are among those still resisting the loss and they have written in defense of Western Civilization; THE GOLDEN THREAD,
https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Thread-Ancient-World-Christendom/dp/1641773995
I just began the first volume but they see the pillars of our civilization resting on two bases: Athens and Jerusalem. It is worth defending against the rot..
Here is a very good review of THE GOLDEN THREAD in the Claremont Review.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-renegade-academy
A fabulous journey into the book. Will the West remember itself, or will it become another Angkor Wat, a great civilization we know little about? Will the future see only our hollowed-out buildings and rocket ships? Will the final epitaph be the chant, “Hey hey, ho ho, Western culture’s got to go”? Though I don’t know where we are heading, I envision the portable Torah, entangled in the civilizations of the past, surviving. Will that be so for the future?
It’s time to pump it up
The good thing about these lunatic proposals and lawfare suits is that they often end up creating clear precedents for constitutional sanity.
One of the greatest accomplishments of President Trump was in his first term: appointing competent justices to the Supreme Court.
Oddly, one of the few beneficial acts of Biden was also a Supreme Court appointment. Kentanji will be a constant reminder of the stupidity and folly of DEI hiring. For pro-DEI theory she is an open wound that keeps sprinkling salt into itself.
Agree, Young. The crazy stuff hurts in the short term, but it also forces real courts to draw bright constitutional lines, and those stick. Trump’s judges are paying dividends on that front, and Jackson is turning into a walking exhibit for what happens when you treat the Court like a DEI slot instead of a serious office. That contrast is doing a lot of quiet formation work for the next generation of citizens.
It’s not really, Golly, doing any work. Second class citizens will always be 2nd class no matter how much huffing and puffing goes on.
It’s truly amazing how courts look at orecedent but FAIL at looking down the path to where it’s bent…permanent residents with ALLEGIANCE to foreign nations give birth to citizens capable of the presidency. How does a person have allegiance, loyalty to 2 nations simultaneously, Golly? Omar let’s Somalis know she’s in congress for Somalis. They fly their little loyalty flags outside their offices.
It’s an outrageous condition and the misfortune is staggering.
Is that how TACO refers to them as competent?
The fe3minists busted into men’s locker rooms and other places and now want to exclude them from traditionally male spaces. Truth be known, the crazies want to abolish men.
Women’s college sports is utterly dominated by lesbians-90% or greater and includes instructors. Let’s ban lgbt from gyms. Unless the straight female is some kind of star in a sport she’s in for injury.
I don’t care what you do with it. Frankly, Scarlett, I don’t give a darn.
Keep your head down in gyms and get done what you’re there to do and leave. No one would know who’s in the gym if you mind your own business.
NEXT
While the NY Post headline is certainly attention grabbing, this apparently is a pilot project – a trial if you will. Reading the original Daily Trojan article it becomes clearer that after lengthy discussion including noting the restriction the facility “must also remain open to all under University policy” they came to this pilot project. “The result was a smaller-scale trial run in the Robinson Room, which … is more of a stretching or yoga room than a full gym floor. … the first phase is mainly about proving student demand. ”
Frankly from the description provided and as the father of two daughters, I support the basic concept. This is not as if any men are banned from the weight machines. And I am pleased to see that there is a limited time trial after which to evaluate and make adjustments as needed. This is a much better approach than the utterly irrational whole-hog implementation that one has seen with other “reforms” such as defunding the police.
I do think that where the project may founder is with the inclusion of the psychologically self attributed “non-binary” individuals. I am a firm believer in having objective criterion as much as practicable. Perhaps sanity will prevail in the end.
You mean Professor Turdley was employing hyperbole to fuel the so-called “Age of Rage” that he always bemoans?
I have 2 daughters and they both seem to get along with boys and men just fine, they even tolerate the stupid, which is a good disposition to have towards half the earth’s population. I am less sanguine about throwing her in a room with a bunch of autogynephilic degenerates based on the Marxist need for an enemy and having Academic Red Guards police the entrance at public expense.
Wth is autogynophilic? A disease like herpes? I’m not looking it up so perhaps you’re speaking to the more erudite commenters. Self love of the gyno 😂 maybe friends of the gyno. <—- being polite.
^^^^ My error. Of course autogynephilic, I misread. NEPHILIC yes of course. It makes sense now, I agree. 😂
How is this any different from USC’s football program facilities only being open to men?
I answered you above. It’s different because some college sports are played only by men. At the same time, some USC varsity sports are played only by women, such as softball and field hockey. If men are allowed into the facilities of those teams, then you have a point, but not based on a gym policy that excludes men at certain times, but never excludes women.
Women can apply…
UNLESS this issue affects 80% of American citizens, stop wasting their money. Defend USC and disallow foreign donors by law.
Should we give slavery another trial ?
So glad to see JT ignore the elephant in the room, trumps complete and total incompetence. We wouldn’t want the public to find out how our Sec of Def is a complete failure.
“Painting a picture that ‘one squeaked through’ is a falsehood,” one of the injured soldiers revealed to CBS News. “I want people to know the unit … was unprepared to provide any defense for itself. It was not a fortified position.”
The soldier and others from the unit spoke under a condition of anonymity due to the military’s strict media restrictions.
According to these service members, missile alarms signaled their crew of roughly 60 troops to take cover several hours before the attack. But then an all-clear sounded, so officers took off their helmets and went back to work in a small office made of wood and tin.
Suddenly, “everything shook,” said one soldier. “And it’s something like what you see in the movies. Your ears are ringing. Everything’s fuzzy. Your vision is blurry. You’re dizzy. There’s dust and smoke everywhere.”
In a daze, the soldier looked around and saw fellow service members with “head wounds, heavy bleeding, lots of perforated eardrums, and then just shrapnel all over, so folks are bleeding from their abdomen, bleeding from arms, bleeding from legs.”
It turned out to be a direct hit, killing six — the deadliest attack on American troops since 2021.
This is a legal blog run by a law professor. He can choose the topics he writes about, and your TDS has no bearing on that. I understand that you lefties are triggered by anything Trump does, which would be true even if he cured cancer. But that doesn’t mean the professor, in writing about the topics he selects, is ignoring the “elephant in the room.” You apparently don’t even know what that expression means. It does not mean that a law professor is somehow not participating in your mental illness.
TDS swings both ways. Among Trumpies TDS includes being triggered by the Trump vaccines.
Soldiers die in military conflicts
Instead of fixating on word games
Maybe you should note that us soldiers in the gulf appear to be safer than they were when in the US
The us casualty rate for this conflict is incredibly low
I do not need sec def to tell me that
I do not need you to try to spin a low casualty rate into a slaughter
Hey numb nuts, it’s war, people get killed in the most horrific way. Do you recall how many Marines were killed in Lebanon by these fukkers?
I predict America will be pulling out of the ME in the near future.
These savages butchered women right in the street on Oct. 7.
They can never repay that debt or suffer enough penalties.
For those arguing about Title IX here, can we at least agree on the basic fork in the road. If these two hours a week exclude all biological males from that room, then USC is at least running a straight sex separation policy and you can argue it fits the new ‘biology based’ Title IX standard. If, instead, the policy carves out an exception for non‑binary students who are biologically male while excluding only those who identify as men, then it is not enforcing sex at all, it is enforcing identity categories. In that scenario it is not complying with a biological‑sex Title IX rule, it is doing something different and calling it compliance.
Olly, that’s a fair ‘fork in the road,’ but here’s why that road leads to a dead end for your argument:
If USC is enforcing a strict ‘biological sex’ policy to align with the new Title IX rules, they are effectively doing exactly what the administration has been screaming for—protecting biological women from the presence of biological men. You might hate the ‘hour’ itself, but you can’t call it illegal if you’ve spent the last year arguing that biological sex is the only valid way to organize society.
However, if they are using ‘identity categories’ (letting in non-binary biological males), you’re right—it wouldn’t fit the administration’s new binary rule. But here’s the kicker: under California’s SB 1100, the state defines ‘sex’ to include gender identity. So USC is stuck in a legal vice. If they follow the Feds (strict biology), they lose California funding. If they follow California (identity categories), they risk the Feds pulling grants.
By using ‘non-binary’ as a bridge, they aren’t ‘pretending’ to comply; they are trying to survive a constitutional civil war between state and federal law.
You’re calling it a ‘fake policy,’ but in reality, it’s just the logical result of an administration that wants to use Title IX as a weapon while a state like California uses its budget as a shield.
It’s more unlikely that California will pull its state funding.
X, you are actually proving my point. I never called this a ‘fake policy.’ Those are your words for the exact fork I laid out. If USC really excludes all biological males during those hours, that is at least a straight sex separation rule and you can try to argue it fits the new federal Title IX standard. If instead it lets biologically male ‘non‑binary’ students in while locking out biologically male ‘men,’ then it is not enforcing sex at all, it is enforcing identity categories, which you have now helpfully labeled as fake discrimination. On that much, at least, we agree.
Now you are switching issues to California. If California wants to fold gender identity into its own discrimination laws, that is California’s business. The minute USC takes federal money, it also signs up for federal civil rights conditions. Under the Supremacy Clause you do not get to treat Title IX as optional because Sacramento passed SB 1100. USC can pick its lane, comply with federal conditions and keep the funds, or walk away from them and live under California only. What it cannot do is pretend that ‘non‑binary males in, men out’ is something being forced on it by a legal vise. That is a policy choice, not a trap.
If USC really excludes all biological males during those hours, that is at least a straight sex separation rule and you can try to argue it fits the new federal Title IX standard.
Even under that type of separation, wouldn’t USC be required to provide equal time for males-only gym attendance?
No, why would they? Are males feeling uncomfortable with women present while they work out? If they specifically asked a set time where only men can use the gym for those reasons the school does have to provide it. But we both now that won’t happen because men don’t care about being ogled by women.
“that won’t happen because men don’t care about being ogled by women.”
That is a ridiculous argument demonstrating your lack of fundamental principles.
S. Meyer, so prove your point. Give us an example. You can’t because you are incapable of such complexities.
Don’t ask me to teach you basic principles you lack when you don’t even have a name, or do you X?
S. Meyer, you have no examples. As expected. You’re just running your mouth.
GSX, I need not feed you. I have a reasonable reputation for fact and truth. You have neither. I will provide the statement again. Read the two statements and your conclusion. Ridiculous!
“that won’t happen because men don’t care about being ogled by women.”
That is a ridiculous argument demonstrating your lack of fundamental principles.
“…men don’t care about being ogled by women.”
False.
So prove it
The RULES of gyms everywhere is do not ogle! Are you saying they’re breaking the rules? Eyes down, mins your own beeswax.
Just nonsense
Yes, men are feeling uncomfortable because of false accusations that may cost time and money. Put a security guard on duty.
Do not invite any male back to your apartment after gym. Too much testosterone…
I’d say yes in principle, but the story doesn’t tell us that USC isn’t doing that. If they were truly running a strict biological sex separation for those hours, then Title IX logic would point toward providing substantially equal access and opportunity to males somewhere in the system, whether by comparable time or comparable facilities. The legal problem I am flagging kicks in if they are not actually doing straight sex separation at all, but are instead carving out an identity exception for non‑binary biological males while excluding only men.
. . . but the story doesn’t tell us that USC isn’t doing that.
Oh, I think it’s clear USC isn’t doing that. Being explicitly anti-male, SAGE only pushed for the females-only time, it never pushed for a males-only time. If there were a males-only time stories on the internet would mention it, which they don’t.
BTW, it is particularly Orwellian that excluding males is being referred to as a an “inclusive workout space.” Typical left-wing garbage.
I think you are probably right that USC is not offering a mirror ‘men only’ block; the coverage only talks about a women and non‑binary hour and nothing about equal male time. Either way, calling a policy that literally bars men from a public campus facility for that slot an ‘inclusive workout space’ tells you how upside down the language has gotten, because inclusive now means some people are locked out so others do not have to see them.
And honestly, I am not surprised there has been no push for a male only hour, since most men I know, myself included, would never walk into admin and demand ‘no women allowed’ time at the gym, which just highlights how far this whole mindset has drifted from basic adult norms.
Olly – the modern American university infantilizes its student body, and the students willingly go along with it. That doesn’t bode well for the future of American society. It leads to such absurdities as the equity-cards convention professor Turley recently wrote about – which when I watched it, looked more like an SNL parody skit than reality.
I agree, and I’d add this. These universities are not just infantilizing students, they are actively malforming them. Instead of teaching young adults how to live with disagreement and share space, they reward fragility, curate environments around feelings and call it ‘inclusion.’ That’s the exact opposite of the formation a self‑governing people needs.
OldManFromKS,
“. . . looked more like an SNL parody skit than reality.”
20 years ago, only in a parody skit would that have been possible.
“American university infantilizes its student body,”
The infantilizing occurs even in subject expertise. Some STEM textbooks, even 60 years ago, were changed only because students found the material too difficult to pass the course.
Really?
Do you have any proof of that, or are you just making stuff up again?
Maybe you can post an actual fact, or an actual piece of evidence to support your claim about textbooks. But of course you can’t, because there is no evidence.
No he doesn’t have any evidence. He is just blowing smoke.
While I have not written a complete textbook, I have contributed chapters to some aerospace engineering texts in my specialty of MDAO (Multidisciplinary Design Analysis and Optimization). I can tell you that STEM textbooks, for the most part, are not written for specific college courses. That would severely limit the usefulness of the text and limit the audience to such a degree that it would not be financially feasible to publish it.
Well, despite what you have written, you are wrong, and I agree that it makes no sense to dumb down STEM courses. If one does that and the engineer with barely passing grades is responsible for building a bridge, I presume the bridge might have a higher failure rate.
This actually happened when I took organic chemistry at the University. A stripped-down version was used that didn’t teach the concepts and taught memorization. I skipped that book and used the former book, Boyd. When the graduate student couldn’t adequately grade my exam since it differed from the preferred poor answers, I went to the chairman of the chemistry department, who looked at my perfect test score and then asked me why I used the old book. I explained why, and he assured me they would revert to the older text. He said they had switched because too many of those who needed organic chemistry to get into graduate school were doing poorly or failing.
OLLY,
Leftist mindset was never about basic adult norms.
I think the easy solution is make a women only gym. If it gets frequent use, great. If it does not, document that to justify turning it into a co-ed gym. Now, if some yahoo decides he is a “woman” and goes to the women’s only gym to oggle the real women or hang out in the shower room, well, they are going to have to sort that one out themselves. Give them the shovel to dig their own hole.
As I mentioned to Whimsicalmama below, liberals, feminists and leftists birth rate is only 1.6. The replacement rate is 2.1. Conservatives birth rate is 2.4. The liberals, feminists and leftists are literally non-breeding themselves out of existence. In 10-20 years SAGE will no longer exist. Arguing the academia aspect of this is a moot point.
Mr. Up,
I think I recall reading a few stories a few years back (during the height of feminine ‘powah’ and MeToo hysteria, but before the T) of some women doing just that: opening female-only gyms, or becoming leadership of general-use gyms and proudly turning them into female-only gyms. What happened in all cases, was the gym membership dying within a month. Turns out most women who go to general-use gyms go in order to ogle men and to be attractive to men. Remove the primary motivator, and the monkeys won’t climb the ladder (bereft of bananas) of their own volition. Then, after realizing their mistake, re-opened the gym for all parties, but the men had already moved on, setting up man-gyms in their garages and backyards, or finding other establishments that were more willing to let them be men.
Pride cometh before the fall, as the saying goes.
Upstate, I wish it were that simple. Even if the Left is slowly non‑reproducing itself, our kids and grandkids still have to move through institutions these folks captured. That means we cannot just wait for demographics to fix it; we have to be very deliberate about how our kids are formed in the meantime. A women only gym is at least an honest model. What we have here is something different, an administration that will happily curate environments around one ideology, then send those students out formed to carry that mindset into every institution they touch.
OLLY,
I dunno. Seems the products of the third wave feminist movement are of the aging faculty of academia and there are no one to replace them. Or those who do replace them, they too are unlikely to have children. My older sister is among that group and she did not have children.
Funny thought. We have a doctor and nursing shortage crisis that is a threat to our national health care system.
Would we call a higher education shortage of illiberal professors a crisis? I think not.
How marvelous!
Yes, women only gyms exist but men’s gyms have better equipment.
Your point about ‘basic adult norms’ fails because it assumes everyone starts on a level playing field. Most men don’t ask for a ‘men-only’ hour because they already occupy the vast majority of ‘alpha’ gym spaces, like free weights, where women often feel like intimidated intruders. USC isn’t turning language ‘upside down’; they are creating a window where vulnerable groups can actually exercise without the invasive stares and harassment that 2 in 5 women say causes them to avoid gyms entirely. Calling it ‘exclusion’ ignores the reality that, for many, co-ed hours are an effective lockout.
You’re basing your entire ‘identity category’ argument on a massive assumption: that ‘non-binary’ is just a loophole for men to harass women. By focusing on this extreme and rare hypothetical, you’re ignoring the actual Title IX requirement to prevent harm to all students. You aren’t pointing out a policy flaw; you’re inventing a ‘predator’ narrative to make the legal compliance look like a choice when it’s actually a mandate.
Two quick things. One, you are hanging your whole reply on an assumption I never made. I did not say ‘non binary is just a loophole for men to harass women,’ so you are arguing with a ghost. Two, you keep waving at Title IX but still have not produced the actual 2020 text or policy language that supposedly forces this exact setup. Until you do that, saying ‘it is a mandate’ is just you trying to shut down a policy argument you have not actually grounded in the rule.
Olly,
The confusion here is that you are looking for exclusionary language in the 2020 text, when the “mandate” actually comes from the absence of such language combined with the Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court precedent.
The 2020 Rule is Silent: As you correctly noted, the 2020 Title IX Rule does not explicitly define “sex.” However, because it doesn’t define it strictly as “biological sex at birth,” universities like USC must look to federal court rulings to interpret what “discrimination on the basis of sex” means.
The Mandate is Interpretive: Since Bostock (2020), federal courts and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have interpreted “sex” to include gender identity. This means that if USC were to enforce a strictly biological rule, they would be inviting a federal civil rights lawsuit for discriminating against non-binary students—a group the current federal interpretation protects.
Safety vs. Hostility: Federal law allows for sex-separated spaces (like gym hours) when they are based on safety and privacy concerns rather than hostility toward the excluded group. USC is grounding this policy in the documented discomfort of women and non-binary students in “men-dominated” spaces.
You are asking for a “lock out” rule, but the mandate USC is following is the requirement to not discriminate against any student’s asserted gender identity. By including non-binary students, they are simply adhering to the California Education Code and federal guidance that treats identity as a protected characteristic.
No, Olly, you’re trying to conflate two different conflicting views into one by providing a false dilemma.
There is no ‘Supremacy Clause’ showdown here because California law (like SB 1100 and AB 1955) actually aligns with current federal guidance—both require schools to respect a student’s gender identity in sex-segregated spaces.
You are arguing that USC must choose between a ‘pure’ biological separation or a ‘fake’ identity-based one, but federal law currently mandates the latter. To follow your ‘straight sex separation’ rule, USC would actually have to violate the very federal conditions you claim they are signing up for.
X, since you keep saying federal Title IX and California are now ‘aligned’ on gender identity, do us both a favor and cite the actual federal Title IX regulation or current OCR guidance that says sex segregated spaces must be organized by gender identity rather than biological sex. I am looking for the law or rule, not your summary of it. If you can show that, we can talk. If you cannot, then what you are really defending here is USC’s own identity sorting, not federal compliance
Olly,
The actual federal regulation is 34 CFR § 106.31(a)(2), part of the 2024 Title IX Final Rule. It explicitly addresses the standards for sex-separated spaces and gender identity.
The rule states:
“Adopting a policy or engaging in a practice that prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with the person’s gender identity subjects a person to more than de minimis harm on the basis of sex.”
Here is how that breaks down your “identity sorting” argument:
The Federal Standard: Under the 2024 Rule, schools are prohibited from treating individuals differently based on sex in any way that causes more than de minimis harm. The Department of Education officially defined “denying access consistent with gender identity” as a violation of this harm standard.
Intimate Facilities: The Department’s preamble and summary clarify that while schools can still have sex-separated bathrooms or locker rooms, they must not prevent students from accessing those facilities consistent with their gender identity.
The Supremacy Alignment: Because federal law now defines the denial of gender-identity-consistent access as prohibited discrimination, USC is not “choosing” a lane. They are complying with a federal mandate that mirrors California’s own civil rights protections.
If USC followed your “biological sex only” rule, they would be in direct violation of 34 CFR § 106.31(a)(2) and would face the same OCR enforcement actions currently being used to protect student access nationwide.
Couple of problems with what you just did. First, you put an assumption in my mouth that I never made, and then argued against that instead of what I actually wrote. That is lazy.
Second, you are quoting 34 CFR 106.31(a)(2) from the 2024 Title IX rule as if it is live law. It is not. Federal courts have already knocked that package out, and even ED has had to admit those regs are not in effect anywhere. So no, USC is not some helpless robot here just following orders. If you want to hang your whole argument on a mandate, you need to start with the rules that actually exist right now.
Olly, While it is true that the 2024 Title IX Final Rule was vacated nationwide in January 2025 by a federal court in Kentucky, dismissing USC’s policy as a simple choice ignores the broader legal framework they must navigate. USC is not a “helpless robot,” but it is bound by overlapping state and federal mandates that did not disappear with the 2024 rule.
Regardless of federal injunctions, USC is subject to California Education Code Section 220, which explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and expression. California law requires institutions to provide access to programs and facilities consistent with a student’s gender identity. Following your “biological sex only” suggestion would force USC into a direct violation of state law.
USC’s current Policy on Prohibited Discrimination already incorporates these state requirements. By including non-binary students, USC is adhering to a legal standard that California has maintained even while federal rules fluctuated.
You claim I’m arguing with a “ghost,” but you also argue that inclusive means “some people are locked out.” The “choice” USC made—partnering with the Student Assembly for Gender Empowerment (SAGE)—was to address the documented discomfort of students in male-dominated spaces. They chose to address a known barrier to access rather than maintain a status quo that state law views as discriminatory.
If you believe the Supremacy Clause should override California’s specific civil rights protections for non-binary students, how would you suggest USC mitigate the immediate legal liability they would face under state law for implementing your suggested biological-only rule?
Yeah, I am done with this. You were happy to run with a vacated federal rule until I called you on it, you keep stuffing words in my mouth I never said, and you treat ‘California says so’ like it overrules any serious debate about Title IX or the Supremacy Clause. That is not an honest conversation, that is you shoveling talking points and expecting me to clean them up for free. I am not wasting any more time on that.
Title IX (the 1972 statute) provides a floor for civil rights, not a ceiling. It prohibits discrimination based on sex; it does not mandate that ‘sex’ must be defined exclusively by biology, nor does it prohibit a university from being more inclusive than federal law requires.
Since there is no federal law or Supreme Court ruling that says, ‘States are banned from protecting gender identity,’ USC is not ‘picking a lane’ in a legal showdown. They are simply following the stricter of two laws—California’s—which doesn’t contradict the federal statute. In legal terms, this is cooperative federalism, not a Supremacy Clause conflict.
Unless you can point to a federal law that explicitly prohibits the inclusion of non-binary students in these spaces, the ‘Supremacy Clause’ is just a buzzword that doesn’t apply to this scenario.
Your position only works if excluding someone based on biological sex is “more inclusive.” It is a symptom of the mental illness of the modern left that they really believe excluding people (men) based on their sex is as “more inclusive.”
And cite where Title IX’s anti-discrimination provisions are only applicable based on someone’s “feelings” (comment at 11:51).
The term ‘feelings’ is your characterization, not the law’s. The federal standard focuses on measurable harm, not subjective emotion.
Under 34 CFR § 106.31(a)(2) of the 2024 Title IX Final Rule, the law establishes a clear legal threshold:
De Minimis Harm Standard: The regulation states that ‘preventing a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with the person’s gender identity subjects a person to more than de minimis harm on the basis of sex’.
Legal Standing: This isn’t about ‘feelings’; it is a formal regulatory determination that denying access based on gender identity constitutes a civil rights violation.
Supreme Court Precedent: This aligns with the logic in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that you cannot discriminate against a person for their gender identity without necessarily discriminating against them ‘on the basis of sex’.
By following this, USC isn’t ‘sorting by identity’ to be nice; they are following the Department of Education’s mandate to avoid causing ‘more than de minimis harm,’ which carries the force of federal law.
X – are you stoned? Drunk? You are the one who suggested no Title IX violation occurs absent feelings. I’ll quote your exact words:
Are males feeling uncomfortable with women present while they work out?
Read that again. Do you see the word “feeling” in that sentence above? Do you? Read it again. Do you see it now?
If you don’t believe I quoted you accurately, here’s a link to your comment, you can check it for yourself:
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/04/09/usc-bans-men-from-gym-areas-to-avoid-triggering-women-and-non-binary-students/comment-page-2/#comment-2624743
Sheesh! These liberal trolls are straight-up insane. They say Title IX’s applicability depends on “feelings,” then I say, cite to the provision of Title IX that says that, then they say, “Why are you claiming it has anything to do with feelings?” These people are bonkers.
Oldman, exactly. He is the one who framed it in terms of feelings, then pretended I was crazy for noticing it. At that point you are not dealing with someone who misread a sentence, you are dealing with someone who will rewrite his own words on the fly to keep the script going. That is why I am done cleaning up after him.
GSX is ignorant and a liar. I wouldn’t trust anything he says, even if he uses AI. Frequently, AI confuses him, and he takes another side not knowing it.
Sigh, Oldmanfromkansas, you’re not paying attention to the context of the discussion. I never said title IX depends on feelings.
“Are males feeling uncomfortable with women present while they work out?”
That’s not saying title IX depends on feelings. You really need to get a refresher course on reading comprehension and literacy. Follow the context man. Both you and Olly have the same problem. It’s so obvious and clearly the source of your frustration and confusion.
You are so full of sh*t it’s coming out of your ears. If you couldn’t lie, you wouldn’t be able to speak. In this history of my interactions with you, you have displayed nothing but lies, abject ignorance, and false statements. Now you’re trying to walk back what you said. You said it, and it’s in black and white. To repeat: you are full of sh*t. GFY
The gym is hostile and there’s harm if the gym is used. These seek a mitigation, an accommodation for harm free use. Best to file a disability 1st. Sometimes those harmed must avoid the situation producing it.
Not every disability has a mitigation or accommodation available. Perhaps CBT may help, taking a psych support animal such as a dog or turtle may be possible. Talismans have been found curative.
Upstate, notice what X slid past here. He keeps quoting the 2024 ‘de minimis harm’ language like it is carved into the sky, when in the real world those regs are tied up and not actually operating as the settled law of the land yet. Even under that framework, the Department is making an interpretation, not reading tablets from Sinai, and schools still exercise judgment on how to apply it in specific settings.
So yes, this is about feelings and ideology, because they chose a legal theory that treats any denial of gender identity access as harm by definition. That is not a neutral fact of nature, it is a policy choice wrapped in legalese.
Olly, wrong.
Regardless of federal regulations, USC is bound by California Education Code § 221.5(f), which explicitly states that students shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated programs and activities, and use facilities, consistent with their gender identity. For a California university, providing access based on gender identity is a settled statutory requirement, not a voluntary policy choice.
You characterized the policy as “ideology,” but the law views it as access. In the state of California, it is illegal to discriminate in public accommodations on the basis of gender identity. USC’s decision to offer specific hours for women and non-binary students addresses documented harassment—an issue where over 56% of women report experiencing discomfort in co-ed gyms—to ensure all students can exercise safely.
You argue USC is not a “helpless robot,” but if they followed your “biological sex only” suggestion, they would be in direct violation of the California SAFETY Act (AB 1955) and face immediate state-level litigation for discrimination.
The “neutral fact of nature” here is that USC cannot legally follow your advice without breaking state law. Do you believe the federal vacatur of the 2024 rule somehow absolves them of their obligations under the California Education Code?
In their definition of “male” does it delineate “biological male”? If it doesn’t then nothing has changed, as any man can claim to be a women and enter the space. If the definition does specify “biological male” then I’m fine with a few hours being set aside for women only so they feel safe and comfortable.
Then shouldn’t there also be a few hours set aside for males only? Fair is fair.
Of course, as long as a group of males ask for it.
So, if I’m a parent of a male USC student and paid an activity fee for my child to use the USC gymnasium facilities without discrimination, can I now expect a refund for that portion of the fee for which my child is prohibited from using the facility? If not, would I have a legal claim against USC?
There is no “activity fee” to use the Lyon Center at USC.
The entire facility is open to all registered students.
The only fees are for organized group activities with an instructor, or classes taken for credit.
You mean “open to all” except males at proscribed times, no?
As usual Turley deliberately leaves out a few important facts for the sole purpose of riling up the geriatric MAGA geezers that infest this so-called legal blog.
The ban applies to one small room, the Robinson Room, in a corner of the main gym complex, and it only applies for 2 hours per week. The ban applies between 10am and 11am on Mondays and Wednesdays. The Robinson Room has no standard gym equipment. It is an open plan room designed specifically for dance classes, Pilates and yoga, activities that are preferred by women.
This accommodation is for women who feel threatened by men ogling them and making lewd comments, which apparently has been happening with some regularity. This is a perfectly reasonable accommodation for a private institution to institute to protect people who feel threatened.
Exactly!!! Geez, make up your minds, people. Don’t we want men out of women’s sports? There’s downsides either way, suck it up and buckle up, buttercups!
I don’t think you just compared a coed gym to men competing against women in competitive sports that are supposed that are supposed to be for women only, right? That kind of comparison would be idiotic. I must have misread your comment.
Pubescent ANON drooling again.
Apparently, you have a sore spot on your brain that needs scratching in relation to your debasing Turley, could you. And you must be a liberal for you continue to push the MAGA issue. Give it a break.
SAGE bills itself as a “programming assembly and intersectional feminist organization under the student government, committed to uplifting all voices oppressed by the patriarchy.”
No way that’s real. It has to be parody.
“No way that’s real. It has to be parody.”
What kind of dressing would you like on that word salad? Dipole Sage Anyregret perhaps?
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
Next week, USC will be banning Asian students from math classes.
Maff is racist…
Thank you for writing about this important topic Professor. Can you now discuss the discriminatory practice of men’s only golf clubs in the United States? I’ve provided a partial list of those clubs that do not allow women to play and in some cases, even visit the clubhouse. Do you think the Trump administration will also seek to remedy this?
Burning Tree GC, MD
Garden City GC, NY
Butler National GC, IL
Ole Elm GC, IL
Bob-O-Link GC, IL
Black Sheep GC, IL
Lochinvar GC, TX
Gator Creek GC, FL
Are any of these private clubs owned or run by federal, state or local governments? Do any of them receive any taxpayer/public funds? Does USC? If the answer to all of those questions is “no” there is nothing unlawful or immoral in such discrimination, whether by gender, race, religion or anything else.
I’d add one more point, WOL: the virtue or morality of private exclusionary clubs is not a question for government to settle. In a free society, the state’s job is to leave private associations alone unless they’re violating clear law, and let the culture and the market do the judging. Once you’re on the public‑funded side of the line, like USC, now you’ve invited Washington in. That’s the distinction the ‘what about golf clubs’ crowd keeps trying to blur.
USC is private university that receives significant federal funding for research predominantly that has led to advancements in cancer, Alzheimers treatment, neuroscience and biomedical engineering discoveries. No money from federal funds was used to allot gym times.
USC is a private university that receives significant federal funding… Full stop. Once you take that money, Title IX and basic nondiscrimination standards attach to the institution, not just to the specific line items in a grant budget. You don’t get to say ‘this exclusion is fine because the gym clock is technically paid for by tuition.’ That is not how federal civil rights obligations work.
Olly, You’re describing how federal law usually works, but you’re missing the fact that the Department of Education just completely rewrote those obligations.
As of April 2026, the ‘basic nondiscrimination standards’ you’re talking about have been replaced by the administration’s new Title IX interpretation, which strictly defines sex as biological and binary. Under these current rules, sex-segregated spaces aren’t a violation; they are actually encouraged as a matter of ‘safety, fairness, and truth.’
The administration is currently suing states like Minnesota to force the exclusion of certain people from women’s spaces to ‘protect’ biological women. By creating a women-only gym hour, USC is essentially doing exactly what the federal government is demanding in locker rooms and sports.
The current Office for Civil Rights head has stated that forcing women to share intimate spaces with biological males is an ‘indignity’ that violates Title IX. If a university determines that its gym environment has become an ‘intimidating’ or ‘indignified’ space for women, they are arguably required to fix it under the new federal guidelines to keep that funding.
Come on, X, this is not confusion, it is spin. You know damn well USC is not running a neutral ‘biological sex’ policy here. They are kicking out men who say they are men while letting in men who say they are non‑binary and pretending that is Title IX compliance. That is not what the new rules say, and you know it or you should. You are slapping legal buzzwords on a vibes based blacklist and hoping nobody notices the difference.
Olly, you’re calling it ‘spin,’ but you’re the one ignoring the legal trap the administration just set for itself.
If the ‘new rules’ say that sex is strictly biological and binary, then the ‘vibes’ of the students don’t matter—only their biology does. If USC is letting in anyone with a female biological profile and excluding anyone with a male biological profile, they are following the exact letter of the administration’s March 2026 Title IX ‘restoration.’
However, if your argument is that USC is ‘pretending’ to comply while actually using gender identity to decide who stays, then you’re admitting that biological sex isn’t the only thing that matters. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t demand a world where ‘sex means biological male or female’ and then get mad when a university applies that binary to a gym.
The real ‘vibes-based blacklist’ is yours—you want the administration to have the power to define sex-based exclusion when it suits your politics (bathrooms), but you want to call it a ‘human rights violation’ when a university uses that same power to give women an hour of peace in a weight room.
Are you denying that the Trump administration did not change title IX interpretation of gender discrimination? Because you are the one who is clearly confused. Has anything I said not factual?
X, I don’t want to interrupt your conversation with Olly, but I would add one small correction to your post.
The ban does not apply to a “weight room”. The ban applies only to the Robinson Room which is a small room designed as a dance studio. It is an open plan room with no standard gym equipment, designed specifically for dance classes, Pilates and yoga. The maximum occupancy is 32 people. And the ban is only for 2 hours per week.
Anonymous, thanks for the additional info. That makes this argument by Turley even more ridiculous.
Men participate in yoga classes. They participate in pilates classes. They should not be banned just because they are men.
If a student disrupts a class, say, by noise pollution, and especially if the noise pollution is sexual, I am sure there are steps delineated in the student handbook about how such a student can be disciplined up to and including the offending student being barred from the class.
But this segregation seems to be about what the segregators fear might be certain students’ thoughts, not their conduct.
To these segregators, I say, you don’t have dominion over others’ thoughts. Focus on your own yoga practice. I say, you are enrolled in a co-ed university. You don’t get to turn it into a women’s college.
Take a guard dog or report the offender to gym personnel. It has to be reasonable. It isn’t reasonable to exclude males from coed functions. Males are everywhere. Cases of PTSD have various therapies.
“No money from federal funds was used to allot gym times.”
Have you ever heard of the word “fungible” as applied to money?
Excellent point OLLY. The government shouldn’t be targeting private enterprises for political gain. I’m sure you were equally outraged at the Trump administration putting pressure on law firms such as Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, Jenner &Block and WilmerHale for simply taking representing cases that Trump didn’t like. Unacceptable. I’m glad we see eye to eye on this.
I don’t get outraged when the process works, I get outraged when it doesn’t. I expect government to try to overreach; that’s baked into human nature and politics. The whole point of our system is that courts and citizens push it back into its lane, which is exactly what happened when courts slapped down the Trump administration’s effort to target law firms. USC sits inside that same structure. Once it cashes federal checks, it doesn’t get to play ‘private club’ with access to campus facilities and call it inclusion when it is just a new form of exclusion.
Mr. Olly,
the thing I don’t get, is up until around 2000, mens-only and womens-only spaces were considered the norm! Ever since the 2nd (or maybe it’s the 3rd?) wave of feminism, it’s become not “all sexes under equal measure” but “gimme what I want, and what you got.” Gentlemen’s spaces are shrinking, disappearing, going the way of the samurai, because the effeminate has a distinct need to insert themselves into our spaces, to snatch us from the savagery and civilize us. They cannot fathom that a man can be happy when not around women, and women cannot stand anyone being happy unless it is because of them.
It is a bleak outlook when men cannot have a space to be men, and women cannot understand the need for each sex to have their own realm.
Anon, you are putting your finger on something younger people barely remember. Men only and women only spaces used to be a boring norm, not some culture war scandal. Barbershops, gyms, fraternal halls and clubs gave men a place to be men and pass on how to act like one, same as women had their own realms.
Where I would steer this is to the idea of formation. Culture is always moving, and formation is always happening. There is no neutral gear where nothing is shaping people. When you strip out sane, separate spaces for men and women, you are not just closing a room, you are tearing out one of the quiet ways a culture forms boys into men and girls into women. That matters in a republic, because self government only works if you are actually forming citizens who can carry weight and handle freedom, not people who need a hall monitor in every room. So yes, the loss of male spaces is bleak, but the deeper problem is what we are being formed into when all the old norms and boundaries get treated as criminal instead of as guardrails.
What if I own a chain of private hotels? Convention and they’re full. I have 2 rooms. The 2 rooms are for x people. Can I refuse.
Make it blacks only.
Make it a restaurant and no Republicans allowed. I’m a republican and you’re restaurant is the only one open on Sundays.
Thank you for asking. Over 400 private country clubs received federal dollars under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan program during COVID – many of which were men’s only clubs DESPITE federal regulations generally prohibiting this practice. Some were successfully sued to claw that money back. Most retained the federal funds meaning the government was subsidizing a discriminatory business.
Men‑only golf clubs are a good example of how this should work in a free country. They’re private, they don’t live on federal dollars, and the pressure to change comes from members, sponsors, tournaments, and public opinion, not from Washington swinging a Title IX hammer. USC is different. When a federally funded university starts copying that exclusion model inside public campus facilities, it isn’t the market sorting it out anymore, it’s the government’s business, because taxpayers are now underwriting the segregation.
Thank you for asking. Over 400 private country clubs received federal dollars under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan program during COVID – many of which were men’s only clubs DESPITE federal regulations generally prohibiting this practice. Some were successfully sued to claw that money back. Most retained the federal funds meaning the government was subsidizing a discriminatory business.
Which of the following fall into that “many” category?:
Burning Tree GC, MD
Garden City GC, NY
Butler National GC, IL
Ole Elm GC, IL
Bob-O-Link GC, IL
Black Sheep GC, IL
Lochinvar GC, TX
Gator Creek GC, FL
PPP was a one‑off emergency program that sprayed money all over the economy, including lots of places it never should have gone. Some discriminatory clubs rode that wave and pocketed taxpayer cash they never should have seen in the first place, and in some cases courts had to claw it back. That episode is a case study in government sloppiness, not a model to copy.
USC is different. It is an ongoing, federally funded institution with a standing Title IX obligation that is now writing ‘no men’ rules into its own campus policies because some students do not like who is in the room with them. One burst of PPP mis‑targeting does not give universities a free pass to institutionalize the same kind of exclusion inside public facilities
Would you like to go for a three-peat?
Well I’ll be darned the majority are in Liberal conclaves, the men must need an escape from their liberal Mama’s.