Case 3:17-cv-00739-TJC-JBT Document 192 Filed 07/26/18 Page 46 of 70 PageID 10724
finds the placement of the numerous gender-neutral single-stall bathrooms on campus, while useful and well-intentioned, does not remedy the Equal Protection violation.
The retired Director of Student Services testified that the task force was concerned about what to do about “gender-fluid” students if the School District strayed from its long-standing policy of only permitting “biological boys” to use the boys’ restroom and only permitting “biological girls” to use the girls’ restroom. The general point is well-taken, but merely hypothetical given where we are. This case does not raise the issue of what to do about gender-fluid students; rather, the question here is whether to permit a transgender boy who has taken significant social, medical and legal measures to present as a boy (and who never intends to use a girls’ restroom) to have access to the boys’ restroom. Thus, to the extent school officials are worried that gender-fluid students might be using a boys’ restroom one day and a girls’ restroom the next, that would not happen if relief is granted here because this case is only about permitting one transgender boy to use the boys’ restroom.[1] For this
- ↑ There was no evidence that any St. Johns County gender-fluid students have come forward requesting access to any particular restroom. The Court notes that the Broward County School District’s LGBTQ guidelines (touted by Adams as an example worth following) do not include any specific restroom accommodation for gender-fluid students. Doc. 151, Pl. Ex. 66. See also Boyertown, 276 F. Supp. 3d at 344 (noting that the school district was not aware of any gender-fluid students enrolled at the high school, and did not yet have a plan to consider how to accommodate them).
neutral single-stall bathrooms is not the same “option” provided to cisgender students.
46
