http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/01/15/justice-department-cites-title-ix-on-behalf-of-gay-teen/

“For the first time since President Bill Clinton was in office, the Justice Department is arguing that the protections against sex discrimination laid out in the Title IX amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to gender identity as well.

The documents were filed in the Northern District of New York in connection with a private lawsuit against a school district where a student was allegedly harassed because he is effeminate. The government said it had “authority to intervene to seek relief from denials of equal protection if the matter is certified as a matter of general public importance,” as certified by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.”

More below.

 According to the MainJustice post, the actions by the Justice Dept were first reported  on NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122620723

“Long before Jacob came out of the closet at age 14, he was harassed for being effeminate. According to court papers, kids threw food at him and told him to get a sex change. One student pulled out a knife and threatened to string Jacob up the flagpole. A teacher allegedly told Jacob to “hate himself every day until he changed.””

[…]

“The Justice Department's argument hinges on a broad reading of the law known as Title IX. Title IX is typically used to protect students from gender discrimination, but in this case, Obama administration lawyers argue that the law also covers discrimination based on gender stereotypes — that is to say, boys who are beaten up for being effeminate.”

 I applaud the current Justice Departmen's arguing that Title IX should apply to gender identity, filling out the arguments of Diane Schroer in '08 and fayetteville a decade earlier. 

However, I also noticed something interesting:

The stories mention that he is “effeminate” and has “feminine characteristics” and that he was harrassed for his gender presentation.  And the Justice Department is arguing that the thing being protected is not “sexuality” but “gender identity”.

This is the clearest example I have seen that explains how gays and lesbians fall under the transgender umbrella for transgressing expected societal gender norms.

 Or is the Justice Dept confusing “gender” with “sexuality”?