Arizona Superintendent: Title IX Doesn’t Force Schools To Obey Gender Ideology 

Arizona Superintendent: Title IX Doesn’t Force Schools To Obey Gender Ideology 

By Corinne Murdock |  

Arizona Superintendent Tom Horne advised the K-12 community that Title IX doesn’t have any language forcing schools to obey gender ideology concerning policy on restroom, locker room, and shower facility usage.  

The superintendent issued the remarks on Thursday in a brief guidance memo from the Arizona Department of Education (ADE). Horne explained that the current Title IX law only prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, not gender identity. The Biden administration proposed a rule change to Title IX in 2021 that would expand the longstanding 1972 definition to include gender identity and sexual orientation, followed by a formal proposal by the Education Department last year, but that rule change has not yet been put into effect.   

“Under the current Title IX, there is no language that compels schools to permit biological boys to use girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms or shower areas,” stated Horne. “The Biden administration has proposed changes to Title IX that might allow for this, but this proposal has no force of law until it is ruled on by the courts, which has not occurred.” 

The Biden administration announced it would publish the final Title IX rule in October.   

ADE advised schools to not implement policy allowing gender identity to dictate restroom, locker room, or shower facility access, mainly referring to the ability for males to access traditionally female spaces. ADE warned that males could still be held accountable for impropriety, regardless of ideology.   

“Biological boys who expose themselves to girls could be violating indecent exposure laws and subject to arrest,” said ADE. “Schools can provide separate facilities — even small ones that are open to either gender — that meet the needs of transgender students without compromising the dignity of others.”   

Horne explained further that he’s received numerous complaints from parents about schools permitting biological males to use private facilities intended originally and exclusively for females. Upset parents have reportedly told Horne they may leave schools permissive of gender ideologies. Rather than dissuade this type of thinking, Horne encouraged parents to exercise their right of school choice, possible through the universalized Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program.

“[T]hey are considering removing their daughter from schools that allow this,” said Horne. “In Arizona, they certainly have multiple school options from which to choose.”

State Rep. Nancy Gutierrez (D-LD18), minority whip, said the guidance was “dangerous” and violates federal law.

In June, the Ninth District Circuit Court ruled that discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation qualifies as sex-based discrimination under Title IX.   

Title IX affects more than just bathroom, locker room, and shower area usage. It also applies to sports, something which progressive activists are also fighting to reform. Two families sued the state over its law banning biological boys from competing in girls’ sports.   

Horne took up the case.

Despite the legal battles over Title IX not yet settled, Arizona’s K-12 public school boards have been taking initiative by adopting policy that would align with the expanded Biden administration version of Title IX. Last September, for example, one of the state’s top charter school chains, Legacy Traditional Schools, permitted gender identity to dictate bathroom usage. 

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to

Government-Sponsored Mental Health Apps for Teens Are Dangerous

Government-Sponsored Mental Health Apps for Teens Are Dangerous

By Peggy McClain |

“Even if just one life is saved.”

Who does not agree with a statement like this? It certainly tugs at the heartstrings, but what we often don’t hear is how many lives are lost or compromised due to what was deemed as a solution.

Last year the Teen Mental Health House Ad Hoc Committee was formed at the Arizona Legislature with this stated purpose:

The Ad Hoc Committee on Teen Mental Health, which will consist of members of the House of Representatives and of the community, is intended to research and review information regarding how substance abuse, depression and mental illness, bullying and social media, and other factors may affect mental health in youth and potential teen suicide. The committee shall work to identify potential solutions and make recommendations to public and private agencies with the goal of addressing teen mental health issues and improving access to mental health care.

Most of the time when governments choose committee members, it is so a pre-determined goal will be achieved. What the public sector continually lacks is the diligence to take a deep dive into issues and critically think about ramifications. Officeholders prefer politically expedient solutions, while education contractors benefit financially via lobbyists who peddle their wares.

The issues surrounding Arizona HB2635 are real and scary, whether one supports the bill or not. Representative Travis Grantham (R-LD14) was the Vice Chair of the Teen Mental Health Committee, and the personal stories he heard clearly moved him. He sponsored HB2635 which would allow local governing boards to provide a mental health app for teens to have on their phones simply for access to a suicide prevention line.

But high schools and colleges are already required by Arizona law to print a suicide hotline number on student IDs. While an app for quick access to a suicide hotline sounds lifesaving, there are long-term risks involved for a product like this that lacks proven results. According to a study conducted by Internet Safety Labs and published December 13, 2022, even apps customized for school districts are less safe compared to generic apps—as 96% of the apps recommended by school districts share personal information with third parties.

We know our phones are tracking and listening to us. Apps can be developed to pick up on keywords which may relate to a stressful situation or even just an argument a teen has with his or her parents. Apps are also programmed to pick up certain emojis. Schools could then be notified and intervene based on a narrative which has nothing to do with suicide. Meanwhile, the information the app gathered never goes away. Mental health information gleaned from an app may be a problem later in life when the child is applying for jobs or certain academic programs.

In addition, according to study by Internet Safety Labs, 61% of custom apps send information to Google, while 81% access location information. These apps synchronize with the student’s Chromebooks and other devices. This is especially unnerving in Arizona, which is a leading state for sex trafficking. On top of that, several Arizona school districts recognize that social media is contributing to youth mental health problems, and one is even suing Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok. Why would our legislature support an app which leads students to these platforms?

Representative Grantham has been looking at a similar mental health app used in Utah. The idea started as a pilot program, collected data, and through the data it was deemed necessary to expand the program. Now that the data is documented, the proponents call it “evidence-based.”

Due to pushback, Representative Grantham proposed adding an amendment to provide “guardrails” for the mental health app. Will guardrails tell us who is on the other end of a suicide hotline? Like former Superintendent Kathy Hoffman’s QChat, parents are circumvented while minors are talking with strangers their parents know nothing about.

One of the mental health apps used in Utah is Bark, which has an LGBTQIA+ page. Bark also links students to the Trevor Project, which steers children to gender ideology. At the same time, the child’s data is recorded forever. That is concerning, especially since Bark advertises the CDC as one of its partners. Exactly what is the government doing with the information collected while the minor is tracked?

Children are suffering from a lack of personal interactions with parents, teachers, and friends. Sending them to an app—especially sinister ones like this—only exacerbates the problem. The Arizona Legislature should vote no on HB2635. Gathering data on children is an outright assault on them.

Peggy McClain is a concerned citizen who advocates for accountability in Arizona’s schools. You can follower her on Twitter here.

Rep. Debbie Lesko Introduces Legislation To Protect Women From Gender Ideology

Rep. Debbie Lesko Introduces Legislation To Protect Women From Gender Ideology

By Corinne Murdock |

On Thursday, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) introduced a resolution to protect women by preventing gender ideology from redefining biological sex. 

Lesko was joined in the resolution by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), titling it the “Women’s Bill of Rights.” In a press release, Lesko declared that the resolution would not only protect but affirm the importance of women.

“Now more than ever, we must protect women’s rights and combat the left’s attempts to erase women,” stated Lesko.

The resolution would define “sex” as a person’s biological sex from birth, “female” as an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize their ova, “woman” and “girl” as human females, and “man” and “boy” as human males. The resolution also would declare that “equal” doesn’t mean “same” or “identical,” and that “separate” didn’t indicate inherent inequality. 

With these definitions, the resolution would require schools and all levels and divisions of government to identify subjects of data gathering as either male or female at birth, such as for public health, crime, and economic data. It also would make all policies and laws distinguishing sexes subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny, a test employed by courts to determine the constitutionality of a statute that negatively impacts certain protected classes. Statutes pass scrutiny if they further an important government interest and employ means of accomplishing that interest that are substantially related to that interest. 

Further, the resolution would warrant discrimination in certain circumstances.

“There are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons or other detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms, and other areas where biology, safety, and/or privacy are implicated,” stated the resolution.

Lesko and Hyde-Smith first introduced the resolution last May, in the 117th Congress. It was referred to the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee last November, but never made it any further. During a press conference last year, Lesko argued that the necessity of her resolution proved that the country has gone “to hell in a handbasket.”

“The world is totally upside down when I have to introduce legislation to define a woman versus a man,” said Lesko. “More and more often our colleagues on the left are trying to erase women.” 

That version of the Women’s Bill of Rights was included in the Republican Study Committee (RSC) Family Policy Agenda ahead of the midterm elections. The agenda issued over 80 recommendations to better align the GOP with its goal of advancing families’ interests, focusing on child protections, increased economic power for working families, additional parental rights, increased flexibility to child care, elimination of policies discouraging family formation, incentives to work, school choice, higher education reforms, foster care and adoption reforms, and abortion abolition.

The RSC was established 50 years ago for the purpose of coordinating research efforts by conservative congressmen. 

Lesko and Hyde-Smith were assisted in crafting the resolution by the Independent Women’s Law Center and Independent Women’s Voice, two related women’s advocacy organizations.

Independent Women’s Law Center Director Jennifer Braceras said that rooting out sex discrimination won’t be possible without proper definitions of biological sex.

“We can’t fight sex discrimination if we can’t agree on what it means to be a woman. And we can’t collect accurate data regarding public health, medicine, education, crime, and the economic status of women if we redefine sex to mean ‘gender identity,’” said Braceras. 

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to