Trans

A Victory for Trans Teens as Supreme Court Declines To Hear Appeal in Bathroom Case

The refusal leaves in place a federal court decision favoring trans students' right to insist on accommodation.

|

The Supreme Court today declined to revisit a case about how transgender students are treated with regard to bathrooms in public schools. It's leaving a lower court ruling intact that says it's unconstitutional for a school district to try to force a transgender student to continue using the bathroom facilities corresponding to their sex at birth.

In Monday's orders, the Supreme Court rejected a petition to hear Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, a case that the Supreme Court originally planned to hear all the way back in 2016. The case has instead followed a winding road through three presidential administrations.

Gavin Grimm was a transgender male student at Gloucester High School in Gloucester County, Virginia. He began his transition while in school in 2014 and sought to get permission to start using male restrooms. The school board forbade it and set in place a policy of requiring trans teens to use either the restroom of their birth sex or a unisex bathroom.

Grimm, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sued the school district, arguing that this treatment was a form of sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The Department of Justice under President Barack Obama agreed with a court interpretation that federal protections against sex discrimination also covered discrimination against trans students. It got involved in the case on Grimm's side. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case to attempt to answer the question of whether trans discrimination counts as sex discrimination.

Then, President Donald Trump was elected president. Before the Supreme Court actually heard the arguments, the Department of Justice in 2017, led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, withdrew its legal guidance supporting Grimm's position. The Justice Department under Trump argued that sex and gender identity were separate legal concepts and therefore states were responsible for outlining policies on how to accommodate (or not accommodate) trans students.

Because of this shift, in March 2017, the Supreme Court vacated Grimm's case without hearing it and sent it back down to the lower courts for reconsideration.

This didn't kill the case. It just pushed the fight back down the ladder to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Grimm and the ACLU continued the fight and in August 2019, the court granted a summary judgment affirming Grimm's position. U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen ruled that the Gloucester School District violated Grimm's rights under the 14th Amendment and Title IX, particularly by the school's refusal to update its records to designate Grimm as male after he had legally changed the sex on his birth certificate. In August 2020, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed this decision with a 2–1 vote.

In February of this year, the school board petitioned the Supreme Court to again take up this case to settle whether Title IX obligates schools to treat trans students by their chosen sex rather than their birth sex.

Today the Supreme Court decided it would not get involved again, though Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the petition to hear the case.

This leaves the legal conflict not fully resolved, but with the weight of federal court decisions in favor of trans students. For trans students in schools within the 4th Circuit (Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina), the end of the Grimm case means that school districts cannot enforce restroom facility policies against trans students that treat them differently from other students.

We also have a sense of where the Supreme Court might have gone anyway from last year's 6–3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that decision, the majority determined that the protections against sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also protect against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

Title IX is a different federal law, but it would seem as though similar logic might apply. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court at this point is not interested in officially weighing in, which has the effect of leaving the pro-trans rulings in place.

Grimm, now well into adulthood, celebrated his win on Twitter:

NEXT: America Is Back to Bombing Syria

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Great leap forward for freedom: Government decrees that the mentally ill get to choose which school bathroom they use.

    Libertarian moment!

    1. We are all required to join into the delusion.

      By this logic, if someone snaps and thinks he’s Jesus, he should be crucified, not treated.

      1. And another meeting of Libertarians For Government Enforcement Of Fairy-Tale-Based Bigotry is convened!

        1. Invoking fairy-tale-based bigotry in a story about people who pretend they are men when they are women, or pretend to women when they are men, is so unintentionally hilarious it could only be properly executed by our resident hicklib inbred.

          1. They chose a transgender girl to boy for a reason, if it had been the opposite more people might have been skeeved out.

            1. USA Making money online more than 15000$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular FRECFF office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. It’s on point for the authoritarians here.

          1. Nobody’s surprised that you believe in biological impossibilities, shitlunches.

            1. Gender is not a biological imperative. Neither are bathrooms.

      2. Those who refuse to drink his blood and be saved should be cast out!

    2. No one worries about the rights of the majority of kids who feel uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex

      1. Because none of them have sued. Squeaky wheel.

      2. People who have been on hormones for a while usually look more like their preferred gender. If some heavily muscled guy with a beard walked into a woman’s restroom the women in there will probably be uncomfortable. If he walked into a men’s restroom, the men probably won’t be. The fact that, when he gets into a stall and pulls down his pants, there is a vagina down there, doesn’t really mean anything in terms of the comfort of the other people in the restroom.

        1. This is pretty much what I always say. Use the bathroom that you can get away with using and that would be least disruptive. No laws needed. No one is going to check your genes (or in your jeans) when you go to the toilet.

        2. “People who have been on hormones for a while usually look more like their preferred gender.”

          Nah. Girls who’ve been on male hormones for a while usually look somewhat masculine, that’s true. But men who go on testosterone blockers don’t go in the opposite direction.

          Blocking testosterone doesn’t magically reverse the structural changes to your skeleton or musculature, which is exactly why M to F ‘trans’ athletes crush their female competition. (Unless, like Olympic power lifting, the female competition consists of Russian women who’ve been on steroids for years.)

          Now, if you intervene hormonally before puberty, all bets are off. But after puberty? There’s only so much you can change with hormone injections.

          1. And yet somehow men are much better at making themselves look like reasonably attractive women than women are at looking like men.
            I think it’s clothes and makeup and how you carry yourself that makes the most difference in passing for the other sex.

        3. And if that is all we were talking about then it is not much of a big deal, but it is not. The activists will see no difference between the stall and an open floor shower with the same inclusion demands and “how dare you have an issue with my female penis you bigot” outrage and defense. This is why you cannot deal rationally with post modernists, there is no reality to them just their feelings.

          1. Put down Jordan Peterson and read a real book.

          2. The activists will see no difference between the stall and an open floor shower with the same inclusion demands and “how dare you have an issue with my female penis you bigot” outrage and defense.

            This is being generous. There are already people who insist that refusing to date transgender individuals and that preferring partners with the genitals they came equipped with at birth is bigotry. Moreover, this insanity is overtly and by name a continuation of the LGBTQ movement. The sorts of things Scalia warned us about have been, are coming, and will continue to come true.

        4. Getting caught is part of the kink.

      3. Who knew there was a “right not to feel uncomfortable”.

        1. Who knew there was a “right not to feel uncomfortable”.

          Hey remember how you spent 18 months telling us that everyone in the United States of America should be compelled by the government to wear a cloth covering on their face despite decades of research experimentally confirming that such coverings have absolutely no efficacy in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses because you’re a fatass piece of shit who was shitting his pants in terror of getting Covid-19? Remember how important your “right” not to feel uncomfortable was?

        2. Didnt the court just say trannies have that right?

        3. Yet you are defending the right of the trans person to not feel uncomfortable with his choice over the feelings of many. In fact the solution for that uncomfortable person existed in a unisex bathroom.

          But you’d have to stop being dishonest to recognize that.

          1. The courts are simply recognizing their right to be free from discrimination based on sex, which is something you already enjoy.

            1. how is using a bathroom of your actual sex discrimination? If I’m following you why have male/female bathrooms at all? Isn’t having a sex specific bathroom discrimination by definition…it discriminates against someone? As Corn Pop would say…”come on man”…

              1. How is forcing people into a certain bathroom against their will compatible with libertarianism?

                1. Why would you care? You’re authoritarian, not libertarian.

        4. Newsome’s whole case is based on the idea that trans people have a right to not be uncomfortable, that supersedes everyone else’s rights.

      4. Why in fuck has ‘sharing a bathroom’ become such an article of faith among people?

        This is not a major design challenge. It is not a big cost thing. afaik there is only the one mention in the Bible – And yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for there shall always be a toilet stall nearby with the appropriate gender on the door. Which is admittedly confusing.

        1. Look at jfree demonstrate his ignorance of the issue… it extends to high school gyms too. Now boys can shower in the girls shower. You seemingly support this.

          1. Just goes to show what a moron you are. Do you have mens and women’s bathrooms at home? This whole gender shit for public bathrooms has been a major problem for decades. Look at every public event. How long is the line for the women’s bathroom? How long is the line for men? Has been an even worse issue in the South for longer because of all the subcategories that you southern central planning-wing of conservative/libertarians have always insisted on dividing society into.

            Rather than FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM by seeing that this is all part of an existing problem you self-righteous sanctimonious assholes chose to be – self-righteous sanctimonious assholes. It was the same fucking problem in 1961 at NASA building in VA.

            Fucking morons and hypocrites and bigots every one of you. As was your daddy and granddaddy and greatgranddaddy before.

            1. Your post reads like it was written by a self righteous sanctimonious asshole.

              Feel the hate, j. Let it all out.

              Haha. What a doosh.

        2. Making group restrooms into individual ones will require more space and more cost. Gang restrooms are a cost and space saving measure.

          1. Except for urinals – no it doesn’t. Doubt it even requires more space overall except in places where there are always lines – and that’s a good signal that those places should have more toilet space but can’t do that because adding group space is much more difficult. Segregated group toilets are also real safety problems – currently for women, kids, elderly – not about trans stuff.

            At the margin, adding individual restrooms costs much less than adding large group segregated toilets.

            1. As someone who is in building design, yes it does. You have to have walls around. You will also have to have one lavatory for each water closet and I expect each individual restroom will have to be ADA accessible instead of one stall. That all requires greater cost and increased space. You do not know what you are talking about.

              1. It’s possible. But I’ve seen plenty of restrooms where the washbasin is outside the loo. Can’t imagine why every restroom would be ADA – just one in a block of a few. Could also have one in a few with a diaper changing table. Or kid’s toilet. Or bidet. Or squat toilet. Japanese public toilets are like a spaceship – and some are now transparent (it makes some sense actually). The sign on the door could indicate the type of pee/poop/wash facility – not the birth genitalia of the person allowed to pee/poop there.

                And frankly this is a great opportunity to pull women in to redesign bathrooms for safety because we men only give a damn about the urinal. I know conservatives are constipated about tradition but what tradition is sacrosanct about public toilets basically unchanged from the Victorian era.

        3. Right. “Why do these right wingers always talk about abortion!” they asked at the abortion rally.

          The bathroom issue is the gay marriage of the tranny group. It’s deliberately offensive, contrary to norms, unavoidably in our face. It’s been fabricated to harass people and create a confrontation.

          But those bigots.

      5. “sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex”
        “sharing a bathroom with perverts”
        there I fixed it for you.

    3. Failed leap forward for conservatives: Government gets to decide whether some people who previously used the bathroom now are now prohibited from using the bathroom.

      Too bad the advocates for urinary abstention and protection of urinal cakes lost.

      1. If I identify as a tranny can I use the bathroom without a Covid-19 vaccine and 3 paper masks on my face?

        1. I’m pretty sure you haven’t been toilet trained yet so – no you can’t use the bathroom

          But congrats on outing yourself as a tranny.

          1. Pretty ableist and transphobic bro. Maybe you should just stick to the 9/11 Truther conspiracies and Jew-bashing and leave humor to the experts like sarcasmic and Jon Stewart.

          2. And jfree acknowledges his arguments are hypocritical. Lol.

      2. So the school is now compelled to bake a urinal cake?

        1. That is still pending a lawsuit.

      3. Fuck man, do you even recognize that the school gave him an option to use a neutral bathroom and he demanded to use the boys room? It is the trans demanding shit here ignorant shit.

        1. Not only did he demand to use the boys room, he transitioned to being a boy not to being a ‘neutral’. And he changed the gender on his birth certificate – thus proving that all the shit about ‘birth gender’ was bullshit. THAT is why he won his case. That’s the facts and circumstances of that particular lawsuit as-it-is not as-you-would-like-them-to-just-STFU-about.

          And this new case was the school district instituting a NEW lawsuit asserting that they shouldn’t have to recognize the gender on his birth certificate. Making this lawsuit about the now-arbitrary SCHOOL’S gender identity of the KID in opposition to the KID’s gender identity of himself. There’s no good faith by this school at all and the second lawsuit proves there probably never was.

          1. There’s no good faith on the part of the teen and her lawyers/lackeys/ rented scum. This is all about “oWnInG tHe BiGoTz!” Why should tax payers have to pay a penny for that?

  2. Gavin Grimm was a transgender male student at Gloucester High School in Gloucester County, Virginia. He began his transition while in school in 2014 and sought to get permission to start using male restrooms.

    So if I understand the way the language now works, this student was born a female and transitioned to a male.

    1. And trying to be as sensitive as possible to all the interested parties, at what point would we stop referring to the student as “Transgender”. We call him ‘he’, we allow ‘him’ to use the ‘boys’ bathroom. “He’s” a he, full stop. No further discussion, qualifiers, asterisks or superscripts required.

      1. The same reason we don’t just start labeling AR-15s as Fully Automatic Assault Rifles. Words mean things.

        1. Aha, so the asterisk and scare quotes must remain in place. We wink and nudge and nod while calling “him” “he”, but we know that we’re lying?

          1. We call her “him” to virtue signal that we do/don’t accept the charade that “he” isn’t actually a (fat) woman pretending (very hard) to be a man.

          2. Forcing people to voice a lie is half the point.

        2. But words like “he” and “she” don’t really mean anything having to do with biology. This is obvious when you look at the way these words are used in our culture. We refer to characters like Optimus Prime and C3P0 as “he” even though they do not have genitals or chromosomes. If someone has a pet bird no one objects if they call it a “he” or “she”, even though birds don’t have the same kinds of genitals mammals do, and don’t have the same kind of sex chromosomes either.

          So why is there this weird insistence that someone cannot be a “he”, even if he is far more similar, biologically speaking, to a male human than a parrot or C3P0?

          1. I have no problem with androids using any restroom they choose, as long as they don’t leave oil on the seat.

          2. Both of the fictional robots you mentioned are voiced by real-life men (not transmen, btw).

      2. And if someone wears blackface long enough. They are considered a black person with no further discussion, qualifiers, asterisks, or superscripts.

        1. Truth. Only bigots would disagree.

      3. “He’s” a “he”? Her chromosomes would like a word. Wait, do we still science, now?

  3. O/T – in a bid to out-Obama his former boss, Biden nominates a terrorist AND eugenicist to head the Bureau of Land Management.

    1. Huh, a terrorist AND a snitch. Rather fitting.

      In 1993, Biden’s nominee accepted legal immunity in exchange for testimony that she aided in a 1989 tree-spiking incident, wherein left-wing environmental terrorists jam metal spikes into trees which turn into projectiles when processed for logging.

    2. “It was degrading,” she told the local press. “It changed my awareness of the power of the government. Yes, this is happening to me and not someone in Panama. And yes, the government does do bad things sometimes.”

      And people think The Long March on the Institutions isn’t real.

      1. Jeff will be by shortly to say why progressives aren’t horrible people.

        1. Lol called it.

    3. Not to mention a LIAR.
      “Circumstances of the investigation into the Idaho tree-spiking case show Stone-Manning had been a primary subject which contradicts her testimony to Senate lawmakers that she had never been the target of a federal investigation. Stone-Manning had even complained to the local press several decades ago about being investigated.”

      And STUPID
      “It was degrading,” she told the local press. “It changed my awareness of the power of the government. Yes, this is happening to me and not someone in Panama. And yes, the government does do bad things sometimes.” But bring on Big Government, Baby!

    4. Seems common for Missoula.

    5. Newsome was not “barred from the bathroom”. Newsome was barred from using the same bathroom as biological males. The school did try to accommodate Newsome while respecting other student’s expectations of privacy. Newsome would only accept what he wanted, without any consideration for other people’s feelings.

      Newsome was, and remains, a selfish brat.

      1. And textbook bigot.

  4. Since Shack and the rest of the left have tossed the “sex is different from gender” canard this means the erasure of women in sports and other negative outcomes for females in society. Good job you misogynistic revolutionaries.

    How long before men declaring themselves to be lesbians is good enough to earn a scholarship on the “women’s” team or better circumstances if incarcerated? How long before women’s shelters are erased? This is the future you’re fighting for.

    1. It’s why many feminists have “pulled off the road” on this.

      Podcast: Reason contributor Brendan O’Neill interviews feminist Megan Murphy no “The misogyny of trans”.

      1. How did the current ostensible sides in this get drawn? How did it go from, sex stereotyping is bad, you can do and like whatever you want regardless of your sex; to, if you seem to conform to (or think you conform to) the stereotype of the opposite sex, you can’t be the sex you seem to be? Didn’t they realize that they were affirming what they were against?

        1. You’re hitting upon the inherent contradiction of trans logic. Either the sexes are different and thus, why someone chooses to transition. Or the sexes are not different, and therefore transitions are irrelevant.

          1. Yeah, but why didn’t they see the contradiction? Wasn’t it so immediately obvious that they should never have started down that road and think they were still going in the same direction?

            1. Because PC, virtue signaling logic isn’t really true logic. Anything beyond surface level feels is not allowed to be discussed of analyzed.

        2. Another funny thing is that, contra the PC vs. Bigot videos, the bigots didn’t have to change their minds at all and yet still oppose the PC. That is, people who think males and females shouldn’t be allowed to (or at least shouldn’t) do things opposed to their sex stereotypes, still seem to oppose changes in individuals to conform to their preferences. So no progress was made, just another thing to get mad about.

      2. Or does it really have nothing to do with what the individual wants or thinks, but rather is a question of, how badly can we fuck up society and make everybody think they’re backward?

    2. But you’re trying to use fundamental principles and concepts. They do not think that way (if they think at all). Each instance is taken separately as it happens and the “solution” is whatever makes them FEEL good in that moment

      1. That could explain a lot, assuming good will. But that’s not a trivial assumption.

    3. How long before men declaring themselves to be lesbians is good enough to earn a scholarship on the “women’s” team or better circumstances if incarcerated?

      The future is now

    4. How long before women’s shelters are erased?

      Sooner than later

    5. Where are all of these men who have chosen to mutilate themselves just for the purpose of getting a college athletic scholarship? That seems like an awfully high price to pay in order to get a scholarship.

      1. Since you don’t need to have had any surgical intervention or even HRT to qualify as “transgender” there’s not many examples that meet your criteria. There are, however, dozens of examples of men participating in women’s sports and smashing all historical records held by women.

      2. Hey retard, they don’t have to actually mutilate themselves. They just have to saybsome magic words.

        Is there anything you dont intentionally lie about?

      3. No mutilation is required.

        “The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.”

        That’s the Obama-era interpretation, which Trump admin removed, but we can expect that a revival with similar language is forthcoming. You are transgender when you *say* you are transgender. All such declarations must be considered to be sincere and must be accepted without question.

        Perhaps not a lot of such actions are currently taking place, but I will not be alone in expecting that this “loophole” will have trucks driven through it sooner rather than later.

      4. Jeff. Even if you put requirements in, please note how many parents subject their children to what is essentially abuse in order to maximize their chances of getting into professional sports. You don’t have to go far to find news stories about how fathers turned their entire life’s focus onto training Junior to get into the NBA, NFL, or the Olympics, including constant training, special diets, and even doping at the little league and junior high school levels.

        If there is a method of advancement to get to the top, people will take it, no matter what the cost is.

      5. The beauty of the movement these days is that you don’t have to get hormones or cut off body parts. You can literally just say “I identify as a woman” and get over. Don’t even have to grow your hair long or change your clothes.

    6. Sex is different from gender, which is why gender is trivial and should be ignored in most contexts. Sex is objective and usually nonarbitrary, with a few fuzzy borderline cases.

      1. The distinction is relatively new. “Gender” was invented as a euphemism for sex in the first place. It wasn’t until the 1970s that it took on the post-modern meaning.

        1. And it was taken as a euphemism because “sex” is also understood to mean “sexual activity”, and sexual activity is “bad” or uncouth or even shameful?

        2. “Gender” has had meanings distinct from sex for longer than that. Genders in language being a particularly obvious example. The problem is people taking it to the extreme of claiming that gender and sex are completely distinct when there is an almost perfect correlation when you are talking about people.
          I think it comes down to the faith that radical leftists have that human nature can be changed. Without that, they have nothing.

          1. human nature can be changed.

            Except for “whiteness”. That is a permanent condition.

      2. Interesting point.

    7. These cultural distinctions are as meaningless as any other. Better to give people equal rights and see how the cultural artifacts shake out, no?

      Trans women are more vulnerable than women. That’s just a matter of statistics. You don’t have anything to worry about.

      1. If women are equal to men in all ways, then saying women are more “vulnerable” than men seems like saying they they are not equal to men in all ways. If trans women are women in all ways, then they cannot be more vulnerable, or else they are not women in all ways.

        As far as that vulnerability, that depends on who you ask and what you mean by “vulnerable”?

        “Outsports, a sports news website that focuses on LGBT issues in sports, named Fox the “bravest athlete in history” in a recent article written by Cyd Zeigler. Fox, who is a biological male fighting physically weaker females and inflicting life-altering harm, apparently qualifies as brave because, according to Zeigler.

        “But to Outsports, a male-bodied person beating a female bodied person unconscious constitutes bravery. Not only has Fox beat up women in the ring, won every match but one, but has weathered online attacks from the likes of Joe Rogan. I think we can all agree that getting back online after Joe Rogan has knocked you down is far braver than facing another male-bodied of your own muscle mass and size in a fight.

        “Fox also beat Tamikka Brents, giving her a concussion and breaking 7 orbital bones. But that’s super brave, too, taking an unfair, male-bodied advantage and using it to give female-bodied opponents brain injuries.

        1. Men and women aren’t equal. They should be equal but aren’t. Do you understand the difference?

          If you need to debt trans people equal rights because of a hypothetical threat to sports, you need to get new sports. Try chess.

    8. Bill Burr had a line about trans. He said a male to female trans wanting to participate in womens sports is just a dickless man beating up on women. He is right.

  5. The refusal leaves in place a federal court decision favoring trans students’ right to insist on accommodation.

    FYI, if you’re offended by this, school choice can fix this issue.

    1. The right to insist on accommodation is not the same as the right to be accommodated.

      Back to the courts!

    2. So a “unisex” bathroom wasn’t an accommodation?

      1. It’s not an “accommodation” unless everyone else in society is forced to participate in the lie. That’s how totalitarian societies work. By forcing people to say things that they know are lies you make them participate in their own humiliation and moral debasement. It breaks human beings down into servile automata. How many fingers, Winston?

        1. THERE…ARE…FOUR…LIGHTS!

    3. Newsome was accommodated. Newsome refused to compromise and trampled on everyone else’s rights.

  6. You’re not free unless you’re free to stand buck ass naked in the middle of the girls’ locker room stroking your throbbing, engorged penis.

    1. But only your female penis, a Male penis would be too much.

      1. female penis

        Don’t you mean “transclit”?

    2. https://twitter.com/i/status/1408997169344909313

      A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women’s section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a “woman.” The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it’s the law.

  7. Under Obama’s Dear Colleagues guidance letter (and which I expect to be resurrected by Biden or Harris), no diagnosis, nor treatment, nothing is required. A person’s gender is what they SAY it is (today, tomorrow they can say a different value for their gender). I 100% expect that we will increasingly see boys making claims to be girls to get a peek or worse in the girls locker room. Because some smart-assed hormone-driven boys kids will realize all they have to do is tell their principal that they are gender-fluid and demand to be able to go into whichever locker room they feel like that day. I also expect to see increasing numbers of boys making claims to be girls once they get cut from a boys team–this is a two-fer, as they get to be in the girls locker rooms and dominate their sports.

    I especially like irony in the Dear Colleague letter: “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”

    The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.6 Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity (e.g., due to restrictions imposed by state or local law in their place of birth or residence),7 requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX when doing so has the practical effect of limiting or denying students equal access to an educational program or activity. A school’s Title IX obligation to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students equal access to educational programs and activities even in circumstances in which other students, parents, or community members raise objections or concerns.

    As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.

    1. I 100% expect that we will increasingly see boys making claims to be girls to get a peek or worse in the girls locker room. Because some smart-assed hormone-driven boys kids will realize all they have to do is tell their principal that they are gender-fluid and demand to be able to go into whichever locker room they feel like that day.

      Anybody who insists that teenage boys would never do this hasn’t spent much time around them. Most teenage boys are only one “double dog dare ya, ya big chicken” from doing any number of dumb things.

      1. See the movie Porkys.

  8. Remember, in the transgender wars, the only thing that is required is to self-proclaim “I identify as a woman!” (or man). There’s absolutely no requirements for hormone therapy, let alone the finality of surgery. Nor is it required to dress or even act the part. Simply make the statement “I identify as a woman” (or man) and then the world is commanded to accept that WITHOUT QUESTION.

    I’m really waiting for some 6′ 2″ 245lb fully masculine serial rapist to declare he identifies as a woman and demand to be transferred to a women’s facility. Heads should explode.

    It just boggles the mind: “It also requires that CDCR house the individual in a “correctional facility designated for men or women based on the individual’s preference.” Similar legislation has been passed in Connecticut and Massachusetts.”

    ‘Men Are Coming’: 255 California Prison Inmates Have Requested Transfer to Women’s Prisons Since January

    1. I’m really waiting for some 6′ 2″ 245lb fully masculine serial rapist to declare he identifies as a woman and demand to be transferred to a women’s facility. Heads should explode.

      The wait is over.

    2. I’m wondering what the rules for private businesses like gyms will end up being. Imagine you’re the manager of a local Gold’s Gym and some big hairy dude walks in and just heads straight for the women’s locker room. Will it be considered “transphobic” to even demand an explanation of him?
      And I know leftists insist that women who have a problem with men waving their dicks around in women’s locker rooms are “bigots” but need I remind you that private businesses, unlike government schools, can’t legally compel anyone to patronize them. I wonder how many private gyms can afford to lose 50% of their clientele?

      1. Imagine you’re the manager of a local Gold’s Gym and some big hairy dude walks in and just heads straight for the women’s locker room. Will it be considered “transphobic” to even demand an explanation of him?

        Wonder no more

        1. “Believe all women…until it is not politically convenient.” – Democrats

      2. If I owned a business like that, I’d invest in private changing rooms with door locks. Then not worry about freaks or anyone getting groped.

  9. “The school board forbade it and set in place a policy of requiring trans teens to use either the restroom of their birth sex or a unisex bathroom.”

    I personally see that as a very accommodating position for most people.

    1. “It’s leaving a lower court ruling intact that says it’s unconstitutional for a school district to try to force a transgender student to continue using the bathroom facilities corresponding to their sex at birth.”

      The above is not what the school did ! It offered unisex bathrooms and NOT just bathrooms based upon sex !

      1. Don’t let facts get in the way of a narrative. Trannies good!

        1. Don’t let the facts get in the way ?

          Where are your from, the book 1984 ?

  10. Hmm, I wonder what happens when this boy gets pregnant from another boy. Should be entertaining when they need to dress for P.E. or something.

    1. If a male and a “trans” male have drunken sex, are they both rapists?

  11. The 0.3% of people who are actually transgendered are not the real target of these laws. If someone has had hormone therapy and surgery to change their outer sex appearance, they will likely not even be noticed.

    The smaller fraction of transitioning men (women who have not yet become men) who want to use a men’s bathroom are also not really the issue. Women in a men’s room pose no significant threat to the men there regarding sexual assault. There are not a lot of “upskirt” photos taken in men’s rooms.

    The smaller fraction of transitioning women (men who have not yet become women) who want to use a women’s bathroom are certainly being–unfairly (to be sure?)–told by these laws to go along with society and use the men’s room instead.

    If the bathrooms and locker rooms are such a problem for transgendered folks, maybe the solution is to have all bathrooms and locker rooms be unisex from kindergarden on up and in all public places. REAL nondiscrimination in the bathroom.

    Just let the football team and cheerleaders use the same locker room. Nothing bad could possibly happen there right?

    And since urinals would discriminate based on external plumbing, everyone has to use the same toilets. We’ll have to demand that those who happen to have external plumbing sit down to use them, right? Lest they dribble on the seat that they fail to put up. Good luck with that.

  12. This is not the libertarian victory that they are claiming. The restrooms are designed for gender for privacy reasons.

    Would Reason also support someone going to a park intended to be shared and deciding to change it into a dirt racecar track?

    Reason is throwing away privacy concerns of the many for the privacy/mental issues of the singular.

    1. Shackford started as an LGBTQ activist and his thinking has not strayed much from there. His first sympathies are for the trans person and it is difficult for him to recognize that the other people effected by this may have interests and rights harmed.

      1. Shackford is about anything that affirms his own biases.

  13. Always amazing seeing the “libertarians” here argue against this. I mean, are people just up and windmilling in the bathrooms now? How about just not being a jackass (like we basically all are not, at least in regards to showing genitalia) and no one needs to give a shit about anyone else’s junk?

    But hey, keep screeching about how terrible this all is for liberty you freedom loving crew. I guess it does decrease your ability to be a bigot behind their back instead of to their face when you’re both in the same bathroom.

    1. REAL freedom means the government telling 13 year old girls that they must shower next to middle aged men with floppy dicks lest they make the middle aged man with the floppy dick feel badly about himself.

      1. It’s not the individuals with _floppy_ dicks you should be worried about…

    2. So literally my first weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area, I’m in a brewpub and headed to the restroom. I’m there at the urinal when this person in a long slinky sequined dress comes in, hikes up their dress, and starts using the urinal next to me. Holy crap!

      Okay, fast forward a decade and I run across this person again. Turns out he’s a Republican and chapter head of the local Pink Pistols. (“Armed gays don’t get bashed”). Point being, never judge someone by the sequins on their dress.

      1. The difference. I presume from the Brewpub that this is an establishment for adults?

        Adults can do whatever they want.
        This discussion is about children, who most certainly cannot.

      2. Great story. Now put yourself in the shower slippers of a 12 year old girl at the YMCA and have that same experience of some dude walking up next to you for a shower. There are no slippery slopes when it comes to post modernist arguments, it’s a cliff with no bottom.

      3. Because Republican means super conservative and on your team.

    3. How about just not being a jackass
      Indeed, when can we expect the women who are not men but want to force the rest of us into their delusion to do this?

      I guess it does decrease your ability to be a bigot behind their back instead of to their face when you’re both in the same bathroom. truly nothing bigoted about denying the existence of biological men and woman, or of mangling the language with terms like ‘birthing people.’

  14. The question should be what “Parts” do they currently have?
    Regardless of gender at birth or what you believe yourself to be now.

    If you have male “Parts”, then you should either use a “Male” bathroom or single use bathroom. Likewise if you have female “Parts”, then you should either use a “Female” bathroom or a single use bathroom.

    There are two sets of rights, the right of the person whom identifies as one gender, but is biologically another gender and the rights of everyone else who uses the same bathroom.

    It may not me entirely fair to either party, but present state of “Parts” seems to be the easiest answer. It does not seem feasible to turn all bathrooms into single use bathrooms particularly in large areas.

    Eventually multi-use bathrooms can be converted into single use stalls and allow mixing of genders within a bathroom.. Until then there needs to be a simple rule to protect as many people as possible regardless of gender.

    1. This sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it could incentivize children to surgically transition really early.

  15. It’s easy. If you have a penis, use the urinal. If you don’t, use a toilet. I mean jeepers. My house has a single bathroom in it, for use by male AND female guests. Who are these people with gender specific bathrooms in their homes?

    That said, the problem here isn’t the trans teen. The problem is that government is running the schools. Get rid of government schools and this whole problem evaporates. Redneck reactionaries can send their children to redneck reactionary schools where they don’t have to worry about interacting with people outside of their tribe. And hippy liberals can send their children to hippy liberal schools where their children will be surrounded teachers who are perpetually raging over the existence of people outside of their tribe. Win win! Everyone wins!

    p.s. I don’t have a daughter. If I did, would I be worried about here seeing a trans-penis in the school bathroom? Not really, because my daughter would be taking karate classes and wouldn’t take shit off anyone.

    1. I mean, why the fuck do I need the government to protect me from trans people? I may find them strange and weird, but I sure as hell don’t consider them a physical threat.

      1. Weird. It’s almost like sexual dimorphism is a thing and biological females are in a more physically vulnerable position than biological males and we’ve subsequently designed certain aspects of society around those differences so that the physically diminutive sex is less likely to be predated by the physically dominant sex.

        1. Except where talking school bathrooms here, which are a very very recent thing. Like maybe a century and a half old at most.

          1. “Like maybe a century and a half old at most.”

            School bathrooms? No.

            Co-ed school bathrooms? Yes.

            But that distinction really does not advance your argument now does it?

    2. My house has a single bathroom in it, for use by male AND female guests.

      As soon as you open up your house to 1500 hormonal teenagers for communal use this will be a super relevant example.

      Do you ever actually listen to the idiotic shit you say? Fuck.

    3. Single occupant facilities are not the issue here. The restrooms used by students are ganged, multiple occupant rooms where two or more people using at the same time.

      You know what a good karate teacher tells a female student who would find herself in a real fight with a man intent on harming her?

      Run and call attention to herself.

      1. Sounds like misogyny to me.

    4. The issue isn’t literally just about bathrooms themselves. It’s also about shared locker rooms, showers, and sports teams. And I’m guessing you didn’t have those in your home.

      1. And even that is artificially narrow. There are already several cases of female athletes being summarily beaten by males demanding access to their teams/sports in violation of the laws and norms that established those teams/sports in the first place. The idea that this is a boon for liberty or women is an exercise in willful stupidity.

    5. That said, the problem here isn’t the trans teen. The problem is that government is running the schools. Get rid of government schools and this whole problem evaporates. Redneck reactionaries can send their children to redneck reactionary schools where they don’t have to worry about interacting with people outside of their tribe.

      Got any evidence that suggests the school or other students desired a trans teen using inappropriate bathrooms in their midst? Because there’s plenty of evidence that the problem is trans teens and their advocates, that even if the tribes were divided, the LGBTQ tribe would seek out bigoted pizzerias and religiously conservative bakeries and force them to bake the cake.

      Not really, because my daughter would be taking karate classes and wouldn’t take shit off anyone.

      You apparently didn’t read about Fallon Fox fracturing a woman’s skull. I broke half-a-dozen bones in High School, none of them were mine. Your daughter wouldn’t have anything to fear from me because we were taught about respect for women. I’ve taught my sons to do the same. The issue is hardly reactionary rednecks as these standards permeate far beyond any (lack of) culture which you clearly don’t understand. Soften the definition of gender all you like, just be aware that you do so at your daughter’s peril and karate is a pretty shitty substitute.

  16. Reason is libertarian-leaning at best.
    They also support coercive monopoly governments which I call states which violate Reason ‘s own logo on “free markets”

    1. Reason is libertarian-leaning at best.

      Nope. 5-10 yrs. ago, when they were polling millenials to know what to think and pimping civil libertarianism, they were a libertarian lifestyle magazine. They’ve since recoiled at the infringements on liberty that their comrades supported, balked at finding themselves as the target of movements they backed, and have shrugged all that off and plunged ahead with the same narrow-minded idiocy. In the year of lockdowns and riots, they’ve repeatedly demonstrated that they’ll cast any and all notions of liberty aside and espouse authoritarianism so long as it supports their preferred Top Men.

      At best they are authoritarians who are more tolerant of dissent than their peers.

  17. Typical lefties jeff and rasp and other idiots made sure to post on this one today.

  18. I felt on the big frat tranny then pulled out my jammie and crammed it inside her fanny. My jammie runs deep so deep, so deep put that tranny butthole to sleep. – Ice Cube

  19. What is the point of fighting for republican supreme court nominees when all they do is toe the leftist line? Unbelievable. Traitors.

    There are two sexes – male and female. Where what clothes you want, F whoever you want. But there tow and only two sexes in nature, including humans. It’s sad to see reason take the position that this isn’t true.

    I urge all men out there to start using into woman’s restrooms. The creepier you behave, the better – just be sure to say you’re a transvestite. Make them pay.

  20. Good the bathroom argument was ALWAYS stupid. Trans people have been using the bathroom of whatever gender they are presenting as for decades.

    Honestly if the bathroom is so problematic to see someone’s fully exposed genitals then maybe the problem is that bathrooms offer no privacy. Build better more private bathrooms.

    Amazon has a pretty cool design for a unisex bathroom in one of their spaces.

    Sinks and mirrors in a common space, stalls will real doors, floor to ceiling with real locks for the toilets. It is a great design. I hope it catches on.

    Now the real trans argument is places where people are actually naked together. And especially when it involves minors.

    So locker-rooms and changing rooms and spas, etc. That has always been where this argument leads and is the core of the issue. And in those places it is all about what genitals are being presented.

    1. “Build better more private bathrooms.”

      Those would be the unisex bathrooms that were offered to the student who refused to use the male bathroom.

    2. Meanwhile the overwhelming number of schools have traditional single sex, ganged restrooms.

      Are you ponying up the vast amounts of money to redesign and renovate all the existing schoolbuildings? And 2ha5 should be done in the meantim3?

    3. Kids don’t get naked around each other as they used to, and kids and adults commingling naked is, I have to assume, rather thin on the ground.

      Culture can evolve away from enforced shared nudity, if it wants. All the institutions that traditionally had it were hotbeds of pedos anyway.

    4. Honestly if the bathroom is so problematic to see someone’s fully exposed genitals then maybe the problem is that bathrooms offer no privacy. Build better more private bathrooms.

      Amazon has a pretty cool design for a unisex bathroom in one of their spaces.

      Sinks and mirrors in a common space, stalls will real doors, floor to ceiling with real locks for the toilets. It is a great design. I hope it catches on.

      You do realize that Grimm had access to *exactly* such facilities in the women’s restroom, right? That the only distinction (users aside) between the facilities is the urinals? Moreover, floor-to-ceiling bathroom walls and doors may work in a professional setting, where everyone is a self-sufficient adult and someone can be dismissed for behaving inappropriately in a bathroom stall, but they aren’t exactly feasible for locations where kids may require assistance and/or can use such facilities to misbehave.

      The real trans argument is in their head. Why they hate themselves and feel compelled to force others to participate in their delusions with the impression that it will somehow make them feel better I don’t think any of us will understand collectivley/popularly any more than Jazz or Blues. Even if we did collectively appreciate it, it would presumably ruin the facade. At least prior generations’ fuckups had the good sense to develop a chemical dependency, choke on a sandwich, or eat some 00 buckshot rather than insist the community torture itself to accommodate them.

  21. “legally changed the sex on his birth certificate”

    I can live with this. I’m not sure how a school could be held accountable for knowing what sex was listed on a prior birth certificate.

  22. If I recall correctly, one of Newsome’s complaints was that he was given his own room on an overnight trip, rather than rooming with a male student. This case was not about accommodation, it was about requiring the school to affirm Newsome’s self identity as a boy, no matter how awkward or compromising a situation that put the school or Newsome’s schoolmates.

  23. I remember during the initial push to pass the ERA there were people that insisted if the ERA passed it would mean the end of separate-sex bathrooms. These people were scoffed at and ridiculed for their dumbass arguments, that it was ridiculous to think that equal rights meant any such thing. And yet, here we are.

    The school board forbade it and set in place a policy of requiring trans teens to use either the restroom of their birth sex or a unisex bathroom.

    Grimm, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sued the school district, arguing that this treatment was a form of sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

    I would suggest that’s an “accommodation”, and that’s not fucking good enough for this bully. She doesn’t give a shit about anybody else’s feelings, it’s all about her. And thank you, Neil Gorsuch for your opinion that “sex” in regards to “sex discrimination” doesn’t mean, you know, “sex”. Despite the fact that in 1972 I’m pretty goddamn sure when they said “sex” they meant “biological sex” because who the fuck had ever heard of or even imagined anything else?

    1. This can’t be stated enough. Similar happened locally. Unisex bathrooms are an accommodation, ergo, accommodations were made. These people aren’t looking for acceptance, they’re seeking handouts and socio-political dominance.

  24. When did libertarians suddenly embrace positive rights?

    I guess when sucking up to the left became more important than libertarian principles.

  25. Why is the Leave a Comment at the bottom of the page? Gavin is 22, and I assume well out of High School. How did Gavin personally win? Sure I guess it helps other people, but being out of High School for 4 years seem to be more symbolic victory for Gavin than anything else.

    1. Weird how this case didn’t fall into the ‘doesn’t have standing/moot point’ trap.

  26. Well, a victory for their lawyers, anyway. I’m not convinced that these accommodations are really in the interests of most of these teens in the long run. Time will tell, but I think we are already starting to see those chickens come home to roost.

    1. I don’t take it as bad news that the Supreme Court refused to hear this case; I do think it’s bad news that a lower federal court took the case. Should 100% be a state judicial issue. Abolish the Federal Department of Education.

    2. I’m not convinced that these accommodations are really in the interests of most of these teens in the long run.

      I’m pretty sure they are a decision against the taxpayers and people who think educators should educate in both the short and long run.

  27. so three “trans” students are now guaranteed their specifically preferred form of “accomodation”. They always have had a commode availble to them when it is time to relieve themselves.

    <eanwhile five hundred normal students do NOT have the accomdation THEY require sufficient to protect their own privacy.

    SOmething is wrong with this horror movie….. and it ain't the normal kids or their parents.
    A pox on the "supreme" court for refusing to take on this signficant issue and deal with it. WHO has bought them off, or WHO holds the key to their votes?

  28. I suppose the reasoning here is that as long as the facilities are publicly funded they should be accessible to all. But if that’s the logic then public bathrooms should not be segregated by gender at all. Or we can go further and say public buildings cannot impose any restrictions on entry. Obviously chaos would ensue, which may or may not be a bad thing from perspective of libertarian strategy, but certainly uncomfortable for other users.

    Alternatively, we can say the facilities belong to the taxpayers and should be run in their interest. Maybe some taxpayers would want boys to be allowed to use the girls room if they pretend to be girls, but I’d wager most do not. At any rate, state and local governments are surely more in tune with their constituents wishes than the federal government. So no I don’t agree the federal courts should have overruled the state on this matter.

    1. Obviously chaos would ensue, which may or may not be a bad thing from perspective of libertarian strategy, but certainly uncomfortable for other users.

      It’s a bad thing from a libertarian strategy because neither anarchy nor pulling liberty from the ashes is part of the plan. Overthrow the King and replace him with a Constitutional Republic is a good move for liberty but many involved in the current rending of social and legal norms overtly loathe such forward thinking.

      1. Neither controlled or directed anarchy is part of the plan that is. The anarchists aren’t out there burning IRS offices to the ground and besieging the Fed. They’re out there pulling down statues of Don Quixote and Christopher Columbus because they’re statues of old white guys and Mexicans can’t cross the border.

    2. I don’t think this will devolve to some states prerogative. Maybe for stuff like building codes or low-traffic public areas – but a basic natural human right to go to the bathroom is not going to be allowed to be infringed by states that want to torture people by preventing them from going to the bathroom or that want to find a way to mock them for that.

      All 50 states have an existing ‘infrastructure’ of a)segregated public toilets in generally privately owned buildings and b)a complete lack of public toilets. So it will take time for any state to figure out how to figure this out – and lawsuits are what focus people’s attention and make things happen.

      States that are trying to make this transition happen will likely win any lawsuits. States that are resisting the transition by making the issue about transgenders rather than bathrooms – will lose.

      This is how change happens in common law jurisdictions. By lawsuits not nec by statutes. Even though we have lost that in the US at the federal level.

  29. It sounds to me like the Supreme Court has decided to unilaterally redefine what “sex” is.

  30. In five years all of you people will accept trans people as readily as you now accept gay people, whom you thought were the harbingers of the apocalypse less than a generation ago.

    You’re not evil, you’re just slow. Somebody is going to be the slowest to keep up. And it’s not actually fair to you to expect you to continue to evolve at an increasingly rapid pace. Up until a couple hundred years ago, people’s cultures never changed through their whole lives. And on top of that, gender is like the most basic thing humans attach cultural significance to.

    Like everything else these days, it’s just that you get to have opinions on the internet. You get to weaponize your opinions and create a new culture of hate and fear, faster than the culture itself can evolve. And that’s why you must be stopped.

    1. Typical leftist mind-reading. It’s part of the delusion.

    2. You’re not evil, you’re just slow.

      Nope. Evil. If forcing taxpayers to provide schools that diseducate children and infantalize them with accommodations for their terminal self-loathing to the detriment of students who don’t loathe themselves and who actually manage to learn something is good. I gladly accept being labelled as evil.

      1. So in order to prevent the infantilization of people, we must pass laws to protect their feelings from the bad thoughts.

    3. Or in 5 years we will crush your ilk everywhere in the world, and you will be reduced to hide yourself in shame like your Foucault was hiding himself for his liberation pedophile tribune. (i’m french my dude, don’t try me about history please. 🙂 )

Please to post comments