> Signatories must commit to “defining and otherwise interpreting ‘male,’ ‘female,’ ‘woman,’ and ‘man’ according to reproductive function and biological processes.”
Which is not exactly ideological neutral.
If your point is that the standards are not neutral, I guess on at least this point I have to agree. If your point is that the status quo is neutral, I disagree.
True, it was less pressure and more subtle than Trump's pressure. And it was in the direction that the universities were more willing to move in, due to the personnel of universities leaning left. But was it really "the universities themselves decide"? I'm not sure that it was.
But I will agree to this at least: Left to themselves, the universities were not likely to wind up where Trump is trying to push them to be.
Cite any pressure from the federal government.
You're engaging in a version of BSABSVR argumentation.
We certainly don't issue degrees based only on what expertise they identify as. We don't allow them in office based on whether they identify as President or Principal. We should likewise not use their feelings or unsubstantiated beliefs to determine if they're a man or a woman when biology has the answer almost every time. Intersex, the exceptions, we'll handle on a case by case basis.
Outside of medicine? What different treatment does “biology” merit?
So you agree there are seven human sexes?