Case 3:17-cv-00739-TJC-JBT Document 192 Filed 07/26/18 Page 47 of 70 PageID 10725
same reason, the hypothetical worry that cisgender students might pose as gender-fluid for the purpose of gaining access to the restroom of the opposite sex is not a valid concern here.[1] This case is not about eliminating separate sex bathrooms; it is only about whether to allow a transgender boy to use the boys’ bathroom.
The Court likewise rejects the contention that permitting Adams to use the boys’ restroom is just the beginning of a “slippery slope” which will result in the elimination of separate sex restrooms. As explained by the Medical Amici, a transgender individual “‘consistently, persistently, and insistently’ identifies as a gender different than the sex they were assigned at birth.” Doc. 119, Ex. A at 7. Transgender individuals are not gender-fluid and their sense of who they are is settled. Adams does not want to use the girls’ restroom. The undisputed evidence is that he is a transgender boy and wants to use the boys’ restroom. There is no evidence to suggest that his identity as a boy is any less consistent, persistent and insistent than any other boy. Permitting him to use the boys’ restroom will not integrate the restrooms between the sexes.
Even so, the School Board contends that its policy is simply based on the realistic physical differences between the sexes. The School Board cites Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1981), in which a plurality of the
- ↑ There was no evidence of a student having ever posed as being gender-fluid at any school to gain entry to the bathroom of the opposite gender. Any such behavior could be addressed through disciplinary means.
47
