They represent the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. Nor was there any proof that any faculty official related to the St. Johns County School District, including members of its LGBTQ job pressure, had ever heard of any incident anywhere the place a transgender scholar using a restroom acted in a way that invaded another student’s privacy. Thus, to the extent college officials are fearful that gender-fluid college students might be utilizing a boys’ restroom sooner or later and a girls’ restroom the next, that would not occur if relief is granted right here as a result of this case is barely about allowing one transgender boy to use the boys’ restroom. This case just isn’t about eliminating separate intercourse bathrooms; it is only about whether to permit a transgender boy to make use of the boys’ bathroom. This case does not raise the difficulty of what to do about gender-fluid students; somewhat, the query right here is whether or not to permit a transgender boy who has taken important social, medical and legal measures to present as a boy (and who never intends to make use of a girls’ restroom) to have entry to the boys’ restroom.

The school Board Attorney agreed that as a transgender boy, Adams will not be handled the identical as “biological boys” in terms of using the restroom. But Adams identifies as a boy, is recognized by others as a boy, is legally deemed by the state of Florida to be a boy, lives as a boy, makes use of the men’s restroom exterior of the varsity setting, and is in any other case treated as a boy–besides with regards to his use of the varsity bathrooms. None of the school officials who testified had ever heard of an incident the place pupil security was compromised by the presence of a transgender scholar within the restroom that matched his or her gender id. In keeping with various different courts that have thought of the issue, this Court finds concern for scholar security will not be an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for upholding the college bathroom policy. The school Board claims that its long-standing policy of getting separate boys’ and girls’ bathrooms has created an expectation of privateness for students and dad and mom who do not expect students of the other intercourse to share the bathroom area. Likewise, there was no proof that Adams presents any security risk to different college students or that transgender college students are more likely than anybody else to assault or molest another pupil in the bathroom.

There was no evidence that Adams encountered any safety considerations through the six weeks he used the boys’ restroom at Nease or when he does so in different public locations. For this same cause, the hypothetical fear that cisgender college students would possibly pose as gender-fluid for the purpose of gaining entry to the restroom of the alternative intercourse is not a legitimate concern here. Indeed, as the varsity Board admitted, there might be transgender college students whose enrollment documents are consistent with the students’ gender id, and no one would know they are using restrooms which can be totally different from the ones that match their intercourse assigned at delivery. The school Board additionally cites scholar security as a basis to uphold its bathroom coverage, expressing concern for transgender students who may be bullied or harassed in the bathroom matching their gender id and for cisgender students who could not really feel secure if a person with genitalia of the other sex is within the restroom with them. 3d at 291 (finding security concerns were unfounded given availability of disciplinary code and lack of file of any menace that a scholar would pose as transgender to achieve entry to a restroom); Highland, 208 F. Supp.

More importantly, however, Adams testified to the stigma that attaches to his use of gender-impartial bathrooms, particularly when he has to walk proper past an out there boys’ restroom to search out one. Adams has encountered no issues utilizing men’s restrooms in public locations, and there have been no reports of issues from any boys or boys’ mother and father in the course of the six weeks of his freshman 12 months when Adams used the boys’ restrooms at Nease. “This coverage is inherently based upon a intercourse-classification and heightened evaluation applies.” Whitaker, 858 F.3d at 1051 (explaining that school bathroom policy which relied on intercourse listed on students’ birth certificates didn’t deal with all boys and ladies the same (and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause) because transgender students, who fail to conform to intercourse-based stereotypes related to their intercourse assigned at start, are handled in a different way). 118. Thus, though the policy treats most boys and ladies the same, it treats Adams in a different way because, as a transgender boy, he doesn’t act in conformity with the sex-based stereotypes associated with the intercourse he was assigned at start (feminine). The college Board contends its bathroom policy is considerably associated to its vital interests in pupil privacy and scholar safety, both of which fall inside its statutory duty for pupil welfare.