The ruling, the first of its kind, asserts that the rights of cisgender people to not have a transgender person in the same bathroom are more important than the equal protection of trans students.
In other words, trans people are now officially second class people according to the ruling. Am I understanding this correctly… because it sure seems that way.
In other words, liberty, and justice for all people.
This isn't just about policy; it's about control. It's about a calculated attempt to impose a narrow, authoritarian vision on our entire society. This is a nightmare scenario to me.
They want to roll back decades of progress, erasing hard-won rights and freedoms. I've been saying this for years: if they have their way, LGBTQ+ individuals will be pushed back into the shadows. Certain groups seek to establish a system of unchecked power. Assigned females will be stripped of their autonomy, their right to vote, their right to education.
Racial and ethnic segregation will be reintroduced. Public spaces will be divided, with some claiming exclusive access, while everyone else—including myself—is relegated to second-class status.
This isn't the future I could ever want for our country. We are a diverse and inclusive society, and that diversity is our strength. We strive for a more perfect union of diverse people.
Our ancestors and ourselves have worked too hard, for too long, to build a society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. We cannot, and must not, allow them to dismantle the progress we've made. We must stand together, united in our commitment to equality and justice for all.
I remember what happened to individual liberty in Iran after “Western Culture” was overturned by religious fundamentalists. Although I wasn't alive during World War II, I heard firsthand accounts from my family.
It’s so similar to what’s happening before our eyes. I feel completely powerless to stop it, other than to shout into the wind, write these little notes. Not much any of us can do but raise our voices. Yet, our voices feel diminished.
I'm going to keep on reminding people of this: "'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal." - George Will in his syndicated column, January 2, 1995.
The only question now is if he should have said 1800 instead.
They told us - told us all along. Too many just failed or refused to listen.
(For those who don't know the name, Will is was has long passed for an intellectual among the right. Figure William F. Buckley - if that helps at all - with glasses and less wit.)
I already know I'm a 2nd class citizen since birth because I'm Black and apart of the BIPOC LGBTQIA+ Community along others such as Neurodivergence and Disability Communities but it hits differently when people make hate and discrimination so obvious that we can't even fight it legally and fairly which breaks a lot of hearts, determination in surviving in a safe world and just frustrating to experience
I can't say I'm shocked considering what that CA Governor done to that state population of LGBTQIA+ Community or how we still have Democrats turning their backs on us but like, I can't even feel pain beyond worrying how MUCH this will effect people beyond the 4 years this monster is in office, like how can we even repair the damages if there is even a America in 2029.
More people will use this ruling in Idaho as more of a example to be Transphobic, Queerphobic, Biphobic, Aphobic and Homophobic in the US even in the safe states that are Blue, which is exhausting, no way is safe at all, and BIPOC LGBTQIA+ gets it double with anyone else having other intersectionality Identities will feel the pain in figuring out how to survive similarity as well.
Don't know what else to do or even say, just exhausted
Based on my quick preliminary reading of this decision (as someone who was a litigator during my 40 years of practicing law before retirement), I believe that the decision is horrible indeed. But perhaps it is not quite as bad as it seems in terms of precedential effect, at least with respect to restrooms -- as opposed to locker rooms, shower rooms, and communal dormitories. Thus, it appears to me that a preliminary injunction striking down the entire law pending the litigation was denied because the plaintiff trans students' Constitutional challenge to the Idaho statue was an "on its face" challenge rather than an "as applied" challenge. See the decision at pp. 20-21:
"We acknowledge, as the district court did, that the use of restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and overnight accommodations do not present uniform risks of bodily exposure. See id.; see also Whitaker, 858 F.3d at 1052 (“Common sense tells us that the communal restroom is a place where individuals act in a discreet manner to protect their privacy and those who have true privacy concerns are able to utilize a stall.”). We do not presume that S.B. 1100’s application to each type of facility will be substantially related to the State’s objective of protecting student privacy. Rather, the outcome here is dictated by the type of challenge SAGA raises. To prevail on its facial challenge to S.B. 1100, SAGA must show that S.B. 1100’s mandated sex-segregation of all covered facilities is unconstitutional; its equal protection claim fails if S.B. 1100’s application to any of the covered facilities survives intermediate scrutiny. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987) (“A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”).
In considering the different types of facilities covered by S.B. 1100, it is plain that the privacy interest in avoiding bodily exposure is most strongly implicated in locker rooms and communal shower rooms that lack curtains or stalls. See Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 657 (1995) (“Public school locker rooms . . . are not notable for the privacy they afford.”). And we see no argument at this stage that S.B. 1100’s mandatory segregation of these facilities on the basis of “biological sex” is not substantially related to the State’s interests in: (1) not exposing students to the unclothed bodies of students of the opposite sex; and (2) protecting students from having to expose their own unclothed bodies to students of the opposite sex."
By contrast, as the decision states in a footnote, "A paradigmatic as-applied attack, . . . challenges only one of the rules in a statute, a subset of the statute’s applications, or the application of the statute to a specific factual circumstance, under the assumption that a court can ‘separate valid from invalid subrules or applications.’” [Citations omitted.] . . . . Though SAGA’s argument focused on restrooms, its complaint plainly challenged S.B. 1100’s application to all covered facilities."
In other words, once the Idaho law is permitted to take effect, if it is applied and enforced against a trans student to prevent that student from using the multi-occupancy restroom consistent with their gender identity and/or expression, they could bring an "as applied" challenge to the constitutionality of ONLY the restroom aspect of the law. The quotation above suggests to me that such a limited challenge on equal protection grounds would likely be successful.
Separately, in the "informational privacy" portion of the discussion, the conclusion that relegating trans students to single-occupancy bathrooms won't necessarily result in disclosure of their trans status -- supposedly because cisgender students are allowed to use single-occupancy bathrooms as well -- is perhaps also not as bad as it appears, because it is based on the particular status of the record in the litigation. See pp. 35-36 of the decision:
"SAGA [the plaintiff] may be correct that transgender students’ use of single-occupancy facilities will invite unwanted attention from their peers. . . . Because the statute does not limit the use of single-occupancy facilities to only transgender students, we cannot say on the existing record that observing a student accessing such a facility will necessarily disclose that student’s transgender status. We do not preclude the possibility that SAGA may be able to show otherwise after the factual record is more fully developed; at this stage, we merely decide that the district court did not err by denying preliminary injunctive relief on the record currently available."
Thus, the path remains open to demonstrate going forward that as a practical matter, observing a student accessing such a facility WILL necessarily disclose that student’s transgender status -- especially because it's rather obvious that that student will be seen to use ONLY single-occupancy facilities and NEVER multi-occupancy facilities, by contrast to a cis student who might use single-occupancy facilities only occasionally.
Okay, I've only read the summary, not the whole decision, but based on that I agree that the decision many not be as bad a precedent as it seems at first read, but I also think that you are making it seem less bad than it is.
For one thing, the ruling elevates avoiding "embarrassment" or discomfort above a right of access to facilities. Imagine the reaction if a court proposed to have white persons' (very real) "discomfort" about sharing restrooms with black people (who they view as "threatening") sufficient to maintain "separate but equal" facilities.
And while the ruling suggests that a challenge based on "as applied" rather than facially might succeed, it just as clearly by that very discussion suggests that the court regards the provisions related to non-restroom facilities as valid with all the potential impacts on for one example transgender sports participation that would carry.
Worse, it employs the Archie Bunker school of logical debate ("It's a well-known fact") to say in essence "well, everybody just KNOWS how embarrassing it would be" for cis students without giving any weight (or even, it appears, consideration) to the embarrassment for transgender students - because, I strongly suspect, the court does not appreciate the real difference between sex and gender and so, as Erin notes, "treats transgender students as their assigned sex at birth."
Bottom line: Could have been worse, but is definitely bad.
You're really not disagreeing with me. Everything you're talking about applies to locker rooms and showers and domitories, not to multi-occupancy bathrooms. Including the "embarrassment" argument, which was specifically addressed to seeing people of the so-called opposite biological sex without clothing. The very first thing I said was that it's a horrible decision in the precedential sense EXCEPT as to multi-occupancy bathrooms. And nothing you say has any applicability to that context. Let's take some hope from the decision on that one aspect, and figure out how to deal with the rest. I don't want people to despair completely. Especially since 90% of the comments here express fear specifically about bathrooms, and the implications for for bathroom laws both in the school context and outside it. My main point is that the implications for bathrooms aren't terrible insofar as future litigation is concerned.
Well, that's true - because I wasn't saying you were wrong about the possibility of separating out restrooms from other facilities. I was saying that by focusing on that you were diminishing the ruling's overall impact - such as embracing "embarrassment" as an interest sufficient to override a right of access to facilities - and so making it seem less bad than it is.
I will add though, that I'm rather less sanguine than you about the likelihood of success in an "as applied" challenge to restroom access. "Privacy" is a central basis for sex-segregated restrooms in the first place. Faced with the argument that everything relevant takes place in stalls so there's no privacy issue with trans girls and women using the correct restroom, how would courts respond to the objection that then what's the problem with having cis men there?
Short of holding that trans girls and women are in fact girls and women - which instantly re-raises the question about all those other facilities - I don't see an easy way to draw that line. I suspect courts would just dodge it entirely by saying that's not at issue in the present case, but the question will inevitably hang over this and subsequent cases: Are trans folks their gender or aren't they?
Let's just say that we chose to focus on different aspects of the decision. I already explained the reason why I thought it was important to focus on the one aspect that's not disastrous, unlike every other comment and Erin's original post. Especially because everyone else seemed to conclude (wrongly, in my opinion) that the decision is disastrous specifically with respect to multi-occupancy bathrooms. In the context of all the comments taken together, my single point about that single aspect -- accompanied by an express acknowledgment that everything else about the decision is horrible -- doesn't diminish anything. Your lack of sanguinity on that aspect notwithstanding. [Part 1 of 3.]
In that hypothetical, what about using their willingness to apply common sense (in the current ruling) to make the argument - i.e. hold up a picture of a cis-man and a trans woman, it should be obvious which one would cause privacy concerns to a reasonable person and which would would not?
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if literally "holding up a picture" is viable, but if there is a way, such as an exhibit during oral arguments it seems like it could make a powerful point.
Thanks for the analysis! I just read the full decision as well and also thought it seemed like the multi-use bathroom exclusion part might not hold up in the end.
I also thought I saw a hint that they might consider a distinction between pre-op and post-op at some point in the future, though perhaps not with this particular law because surgeries with minors are rare, but with a simular law applying to non-school environments.
I don't think "carve outs" are something we, as a community should seek, but as an analytical matter I am curious if you are reading it the say way? (see excerpt below from pp. 22 of the decision)
------
Because this is a facial challenge, our analysis does not change when considering S.B. 1100’s discriminatory effect on transgender students because excluding all students, including transgender students who have not undergone gender-realignment surgery, from locker rooms and shower rooms designated for students of the opposite “biological sex” is substantially related to the same privacy interest.
I agree with you that the distinction is there, but the problem is that such a carve out would almost never be applicable in schools, as you recognize. How many trans kids in the USA have there ever been who've had gender confirmation surgery before graduating from high school? The number is close to zero even now, despite all the lies about school nurses surgically transitioning third-graders at lunchtime with safety scissors, Scotch tape, and Elmer's Glue! And it certainly will be zero in the future if the present climate continues. As far as applying that distinction in the future to adults in non-school environments like gyms is concerned, I'd rather not speculate. The last thing I'd ever want to do is start drawing invidious distinctions between "pre-op" and "post-op" trans people like it's 1995, and privileging the latter. Notice that Sarah McBride hasn't tried to make that distinction, even though it's public information that she had surgery years ago. Even though she could presumably have raised that issue once Nancy Mace started fulminating on the House floor about not wanting to see dicks in the women's bathroom.
Thanks for your analysis. It's wonderful that our community can draw on such diverse talents and experiences. :-)
I am curious as to your thoughts about a different approach: The way to ensure that ALL students can protect their privacy, dignity, and safety, and avoid embarrassment in intimate spaces, is to mandate that all such spaces single-occupancy or to ensure that multiple-occupancy spaces have completely private areas (e.g. stalls with floor-to-ceiling walls and locking doors. Could that argument not be pitched? That way it's not one person's rights vs. another person's. Nobody need suffer any compromise to their rights. This could apply to restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, or whatever.
I think one factor that needs to be considered is that the poor trans girl has NO CHOICE but to take PE/gym classes and use a locker room. (At least that was true when I was a kid.) Given that she has NO CHOICE, don't we owe it to her, at some level, to make certain her dignity and safety are not compromised?
I am ambivalent about carve-outs, BTW. I personally believe that every person should have the opportunity to find safety, security, even if the path to getting there is hazardous. I say this because being trapped and confined, helpless, powerless to improve your condition, is one of the most psychologically oppressive things a person can face. I mean, our Declaration of Independence refers to our unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness for a reason. Without the ability to pursue a path forward, we wither and die. Just my .02 euros.
I'm not the person you were replying to, and I'd love to hear their thoughts on your question.
FWIW - I think your idea is excellent and I've been thinking it myself recently, especially after reading this court decision. It makes a lot of sense to push for that if 9th circuit framework is what we're dealing with. Of course, unfortunately, SCOTUS might have an entirely different take.
But I think it still might be the right move, it would open up a different front and people would still prolly be better off for the additional privacy. I mean, I can remember dumb shit in the junior high boys room in the early 1990s (long before I transitioned) where nasty kids would wet paper towels in the sink (I hope that's why they were moist) and throw them up and over the stall walls to assault people they didn't like.
I think it's certainly an arguable front (private, single-occupancy spaces for everyone). The counter-argument would be that it would be difficult or expensive. However, these are simply "convenience" arguments, and civil rights should rise above everything else - and traditionally have (e.g. with ADA compliance). It could also be argued that if cost were truly a factor, then perhaps there would be a better use for the billions of dollars that have been spent to malign our community and strike down our civil rights. A compromise position could be that all new construction and renovations require single-occupancy spaces. Make it a national code requirement. We are truly not talking about a lot of money. I just know that when I'm lobbying, this is the sort of argument I can make boldly and assertively. ;-)
It's not a word limit, it's a display limit. Your whole comment is there (assuming "a cis student who might use single-occupancy facilities only occasionally" is the end. Someone provided a technical fix which involves getting somewhat into the guts of your browser which I will send if you want it.
Thanks. I can see the entire comment on my phone -- which has an "expand full comment" button -- but not on my desktop, where I can't see any way of expanding it.
I swear to God, they always talk about trans people like we just walk into bathrooms and shout "Hey everyone! look at my genitals! See? See!? Seeeeeeeeeeeee!!!???".
Because they're making shit up. They're even admitting to making it up - as it says in Erin's post. Trans students are not, anywhere, making cisgender students uncomfortable to the point of court ruling. Adults, however, seem to be so *obsessed* with children's genitals that they have deemed it necessary.
It should be noted that the filing published today is a denial to overturn a district court's denial of a request for a preliminary injunction. The language in it is CRAZY but this is NOT a decision on the case itself, just a motion.
I wonder how soon they figure out their "rationale" -- if this phrase is accurate, "the rights of cisgender people to not have a transgender person in the same bathroom", and I am not disputing it I just haven't read the decision yet -- also lets them keep homosexual and bisexual people out of straight people's bathrooms?
I've been a litigator for over 30 years in federal courts (mostly 1st amendment) and you make a (sadly) excellent point and a possibility. while the case involves cis versus trans, if all of it is based on not having one's body/genitals stared at, there is every possibility that if the case ultimately is decided using the "rationale" in this decision, it's not out of the question that a court could extend the decision. And as Erin points out below, the ongoing tragedies here are that our civilization (as uncivilized as it is, and seems to be regressing to worse) cling to the (what shoud be) outdated notions of assigning sex at birth AND maintaining that there is a need to hide our bodies.
It is extreme as to locker rooms, showers, and dormitories, but as I explain in my other comment, the decision strongly signals that an "as applied" equal protection challenge only to the multi-occupancy restroom aspect of the statute would be likely to succeed. In order to obtain a preliminary injunction against the entire statute on its face, the plaintiff had to show that ALL aspects of the statute were facially unconstitutional.
Also notable - if the future ruling on the merits is appealed the judges on the panel might be different as they are randomly selected each time.
Different judges on the 9th circuit ruled in 2020 that a schools policy supporting transgender students bathroom use did NOT violates anyone else's rights.
"The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court ruling that a school district in Dallas, Oregon, did not violate the legal rights of parents and students who objected to its policy of allowing transgender students to use bathroom and locker room facilities consistent with their gender identity."
Don't get me wrong though, I'm devastated by this ruling and I definitely think it's a very bad sign in general.
Thank you. That is important. It doesn't bode well for the final decision on the merits but until you mentioned it, I was so stunned that I didn't think to even check what type of ruling it was.
I agree with Erin that this is a very alarming ruling (great reporting, thank you!) and I hate that they are drawing any legal distinctions at all based on our sex-assigned-at-birth.
Taking a close look at the full text of the ruling, here are a few details that jumped out to me.
When a court ruling is made on the merits, at the district level or appellate level, the court can strike the entire law or just pieces of it. When the court considers this challenge for a preliminary injunction, the standard is ostensibly "all or nothing". To get the injunction the plaintiff basically has to show that the entire law is likely to fall on the merits (over simplification but that's the jist of it).
The way I read the excerpts below, it looks like the appeals court may well be open to striking the bathroom provision of the law. They seem to acknowledge that nudity between people isn't required or normal in bathrooms and seem focused on places where nudity occurs or plausibly could occur, like locker rooms with without shower curtains.
They also seem to hint that they might at some point make a legal distinction between pre-op and post-op transgender people with these sorts of laws.
Of course none of this is acceptable, as somebody posted recently "we don't want carve outs". And, it's of course not even a distinction that is exists as it relates to schools because we all know, despite MAGAs fear-mongering, surgery is extremely rare for minors.
---additional excerpts from the ruling-----
We acknowledge, as the district court did, that the use of restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and overnight accommodations do not present uniform risks of bodily exposure. See id.; see also Whitaker, 858 F.3d at 1052 (“Common sense tells us that the communal restroom is a place where individuals act in a discreet manner to protect their privacy and those who have true privacy concerns are able to utilize a stall.”).
....
To prevail on its facial challenge to S.B. 1100, SAGA must show that S.B. 1100’s mandated sex-segregation of all covered facilities is unconstitutional; its equal protection claim fails if S.B. 1100’s application to any of the covered facilities survives intermediate scrutiny. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987) (“A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”).9
...
Because this is a facial challenge, our analysis does not change when considering S.B. 1100’s discriminatory effect on transgender students because excluding all students, including transgender students who have not undergone gender-realignment surgery, from locker rooms and shower rooms designated for students of the opposite “biological sex” is substantially related to the same privacy interest.
Mark my words, there will come a time if they're not stopped when they start "disappearing" us when we go out in public, using rulings like this as justification. I've heard people say "Well it didn't used to be legal, but we survived!" And to that I say "A: Plenty of us didn't, B: This is the first regime in almost 100 years that has prioritized the eradication of trans people on this scale."
Everybody in America HAS to stop them before they get that power. I don't know yet how, but it has to happen.
I heard a trans podcast yesterday where the hosts were being kind of "Let's take a step back, we don't know that things are going to go so bad. It may just be that we have less rights for a while, but we've lived through that before, and many people in other countries have survived oppressive regimes."
And I just shook my head and thought "Well but we DO know, they told us in Project 2025 and in speeches what they plan to do to us. We don't have to speculate, we only have to wait or stop it before it gets there." One host was saying like "I pass, that's my protection! I'm over all that 'don't need to pass to be valid' junk, I pass for my safety!" and it's like... wow. And what about those who can't, don't, or don't want to? Do they have rights too, or do they just have to conform so that you don't have to actually fight for them???
It sounds alarmist, but what's happening is so insanely unprecedented, and what they've told us they plan to do is doubly insane. I hate sounding alarmist, but like... when the emergency's real, it's real you know?
Even if you pass, they're reverting people passports. What stops them from mandating the same are done with IDs. You aren't safe because you pass. They could care less. Cis people, mostly cis woman, will get caught in the crossfire for "looking trans". Just look at history to say "passing" doesn't mean much.
That's exactly how I felt. I'm lucky I have 3 years left before I need to renew my passport, after that I dunno what'll happen. I don't plan to travel outside Japan (where I'm at) until things change, which may be many years. I'm so afraid of losing my passport and then my visa in turn.
Anyone searching for me or mine will be greeted at my porch with my handguns and long guns and knives. They will NOT take me easily if at all. 🤬🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🏴☠️💜❤️🔥 I want a Gatling gun. https://www.britannica.com/technology/Gatling-gun
This is honestly more devastating than the executive orders. I am terrified for trans kids, including here in liberal California -- what with Newsom throwing them to the wolves last week and now this.
that “excluding all students, including transgender students who have not undergone gender-realignment surgery, from locker rooms and shower rooms designated for students of the opposite ‘biological sex’ is substantially related to the same privacy interest.”
———> is this ruling saying that trans people who’ve had top/bottom surgery are still permitted to use their preferred bathroom??
Seems like it. But of course they're banning surgery for minors anyway (even though minors weren't having bottom surgeries). Not sure how this will affect adults, but clearly they're on their way to banning any surgeries.
I just read the full decision and copied below a larger excerpt from that section where surgery was mentioned.
They aren't saying post-op trans people can still use their preferred bathroom. They are emphasizing, in their view, that the law is substantially related to the government's goal of protecting privacy because the exclusion includes pre-op transgender students.
However, the fact that they mention it seems to indicate they are thinking about it and I wouldn't be surprised if in a future ruling they draw a legal distinction around it.
---excerpt
Because this is a facial challenge, our analysis does not change when considering S.B. 1100’s discriminatory effect on transgender students because excluding all students, including transgender students who have not undergone gender-realignment surgery, from locker rooms and shower rooms designated for students of the opposite “biological sex” is substantially related to the same privacy interest.
This makes me sick. But thanks for the update. I’d like to see hundreds of trans men with facial hair swarming bathrooms in states like this, and then let’s see how comfortable cis girls are.
Another idea - Transmen who’ve had bottom surgery should start demanding installation of urinals in all women’s bathrooms. There must be many ways to demonstrate the stupidity of these bee restrictions.
Yet again, we are the boogeyman that society fears COULD, at some point in the distant future, if we suddenly changed our entire psychological makeup and became predatory, cause embarrassment to a cis gender person who had not availed themselves of the stall which exists in every ladies' room I have ever seen. The fact that such a threat has never been carried out serves as no defense in the face of what MIGHT, POSSIBLY, COULD happen if things were different. See how easy it is to think like they do? All you have to do is completely suspend reality and accept that a make believe universe MIGHT, COULD POSSIBLY exist. What I know DOES exist in our REAL universe is that a transgender girl in a men's room is GOING TO BE assaulted. We have actual evidence of THAT happening, but oh well....
First, I’m so sorry you had to experience something THAT traumatic. No one deserves to be victimized like that. Again, I’m sorry.
A part of me wonders if your predator went on to be a proud member of MAGA. My suspicion is that there are a number of such people hiding within their ranks. Most authoritarian groups seem to serve as refuge for such people. I think there is a direct relationship between being a pervert and how loudly they express their contempt.
Me neither. Except I guess at gay bars in the 1990s but that's a whole other thing..... the rooms weren't really being used as bathrooms at that point.
WTF 🤬 Even judges appointed by Democrats are denying trans kids their rights and safety. This should be surprising. Instead, it is chilling and terrifying.
"Issued by a majority Democratic-appointed panel in the 9th Circuit, it marks the first significant decision in which Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against transgender protections."
1) Maga doesn't have empthatly or caring so they should NOT have an issue with a transgender female in the bathroom with them. Also, maga are NOT snowflakes and don't care about feelings so why care about their supposed feelings?
2) if the djt administration doesn't care about rogue judges then neither do I. And I pay taxes.
3) this also means that parents cannot take their opposite sex child into their public bathroom anymore as it “MIGHT” make someone, someday uncomfortable.
This is the heart of the decision right here: "That some students in a state of partial undress may experience “embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury” in the presence of students of a different sex is neither novel nor implausible." All the reasoning about the equal protection and Title IX arguments rests on this (and the court's implication that "sex" = sex assigned at birth for these purposes.)
... most students in a state of partial undress may experience those things in the presence of other students, full stop. what the hell, 9th circuit? Christen's an Obama appointee, too.
How can the presence of a trans girl in a girls' bathroom violate cis girls' privacy? Unless the stalls don't have doors, in which case their privacy would be violated by ANYONE else in the restroom. At least, that's how I feel about it. And as for locker rooms, I always hated them. Getting undressed in front of anyone is anathema to me.
In other words, trans people are now officially second class people according to the ruling. Am I understanding this correctly… because it sure seems that way.
In other words, liberty, and justice for all people.
Except trans people?
And people of color, and disabled people, and anyone who stands up against him although that last one isn’t all out yet
Of course Shane your comment is correct.
This isn't just about policy; it's about control. It's about a calculated attempt to impose a narrow, authoritarian vision on our entire society. This is a nightmare scenario to me.
They want to roll back decades of progress, erasing hard-won rights and freedoms. I've been saying this for years: if they have their way, LGBTQ+ individuals will be pushed back into the shadows. Certain groups seek to establish a system of unchecked power. Assigned females will be stripped of their autonomy, their right to vote, their right to education.
Racial and ethnic segregation will be reintroduced. Public spaces will be divided, with some claiming exclusive access, while everyone else—including myself—is relegated to second-class status.
This isn't the future I could ever want for our country. We are a diverse and inclusive society, and that diversity is our strength. We strive for a more perfect union of diverse people.
Our ancestors and ourselves have worked too hard, for too long, to build a society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. We cannot, and must not, allow them to dismantle the progress we've made. We must stand together, united in our commitment to equality and justice for all.
I remember what happened to individual liberty in Iran after “Western Culture” was overturned by religious fundamentalists. Although I wasn't alive during World War II, I heard firsthand accounts from my family.
It’s so similar to what’s happening before our eyes. I feel completely powerless to stop it, other than to shout into the wind, write these little notes. Not much any of us can do but raise our voices. Yet, our voices feel diminished.
I'm going to keep on reminding people of this: "'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal." - George Will in his syndicated column, January 2, 1995.
The only question now is if he should have said 1800 instead.
They told us - told us all along. Too many just failed or refused to listen.
(For those who don't know the name, Will is was has long passed for an intellectual among the right. Figure William F. Buckley - if that helps at all - with glasses and less wit.)
I couldn’t have said it better.
I already know I'm a 2nd class citizen since birth because I'm Black and apart of the BIPOC LGBTQIA+ Community along others such as Neurodivergence and Disability Communities but it hits differently when people make hate and discrimination so obvious that we can't even fight it legally and fairly which breaks a lot of hearts, determination in surviving in a safe world and just frustrating to experience
I can't say I'm shocked considering what that CA Governor done to that state population of LGBTQIA+ Community or how we still have Democrats turning their backs on us but like, I can't even feel pain beyond worrying how MUCH this will effect people beyond the 4 years this monster is in office, like how can we even repair the damages if there is even a America in 2029.
More people will use this ruling in Idaho as more of a example to be Transphobic, Queerphobic, Biphobic, Aphobic and Homophobic in the US even in the safe states that are Blue, which is exhausting, no way is safe at all, and BIPOC LGBTQIA+ gets it double with anyone else having other intersectionality Identities will feel the pain in figuring out how to survive similarity as well.
Don't know what else to do or even say, just exhausted
Based on my quick preliminary reading of this decision (as someone who was a litigator during my 40 years of practicing law before retirement), I believe that the decision is horrible indeed. But perhaps it is not quite as bad as it seems in terms of precedential effect, at least with respect to restrooms -- as opposed to locker rooms, shower rooms, and communal dormitories. Thus, it appears to me that a preliminary injunction striking down the entire law pending the litigation was denied because the plaintiff trans students' Constitutional challenge to the Idaho statue was an "on its face" challenge rather than an "as applied" challenge. See the decision at pp. 20-21:
"We acknowledge, as the district court did, that the use of restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and overnight accommodations do not present uniform risks of bodily exposure. See id.; see also Whitaker, 858 F.3d at 1052 (“Common sense tells us that the communal restroom is a place where individuals act in a discreet manner to protect their privacy and those who have true privacy concerns are able to utilize a stall.”). We do not presume that S.B. 1100’s application to each type of facility will be substantially related to the State’s objective of protecting student privacy. Rather, the outcome here is dictated by the type of challenge SAGA raises. To prevail on its facial challenge to S.B. 1100, SAGA must show that S.B. 1100’s mandated sex-segregation of all covered facilities is unconstitutional; its equal protection claim fails if S.B. 1100’s application to any of the covered facilities survives intermediate scrutiny. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987) (“A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”).
In considering the different types of facilities covered by S.B. 1100, it is plain that the privacy interest in avoiding bodily exposure is most strongly implicated in locker rooms and communal shower rooms that lack curtains or stalls. See Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 657 (1995) (“Public school locker rooms . . . are not notable for the privacy they afford.”). And we see no argument at this stage that S.B. 1100’s mandatory segregation of these facilities on the basis of “biological sex” is not substantially related to the State’s interests in: (1) not exposing students to the unclothed bodies of students of the opposite sex; and (2) protecting students from having to expose their own unclothed bodies to students of the opposite sex."
By contrast, as the decision states in a footnote, "A paradigmatic as-applied attack, . . . challenges only one of the rules in a statute, a subset of the statute’s applications, or the application of the statute to a specific factual circumstance, under the assumption that a court can ‘separate valid from invalid subrules or applications.’” [Citations omitted.] . . . . Though SAGA’s argument focused on restrooms, its complaint plainly challenged S.B. 1100’s application to all covered facilities."
In other words, once the Idaho law is permitted to take effect, if it is applied and enforced against a trans student to prevent that student from using the multi-occupancy restroom consistent with their gender identity and/or expression, they could bring an "as applied" challenge to the constitutionality of ONLY the restroom aspect of the law. The quotation above suggests to me that such a limited challenge on equal protection grounds would likely be successful.
Separately, in the "informational privacy" portion of the discussion, the conclusion that relegating trans students to single-occupancy bathrooms won't necessarily result in disclosure of their trans status -- supposedly because cisgender students are allowed to use single-occupancy bathrooms as well -- is perhaps also not as bad as it appears, because it is based on the particular status of the record in the litigation. See pp. 35-36 of the decision:
"SAGA [the plaintiff] may be correct that transgender students’ use of single-occupancy facilities will invite unwanted attention from their peers. . . . Because the statute does not limit the use of single-occupancy facilities to only transgender students, we cannot say on the existing record that observing a student accessing such a facility will necessarily disclose that student’s transgender status. We do not preclude the possibility that SAGA may be able to show otherwise after the factual record is more fully developed; at this stage, we merely decide that the district court did not err by denying preliminary injunctive relief on the record currently available."
Thus, the path remains open to demonstrate going forward that as a practical matter, observing a student accessing such a facility WILL necessarily disclose that student’s transgender status -- especially because it's rather obvious that that student will be seen to use ONLY single-occupancy facilities and NEVER multi-occupancy facilities, by contrast to a cis student who might use single-occupancy facilities only occasionally.
Okay, I've only read the summary, not the whole decision, but based on that I agree that the decision many not be as bad a precedent as it seems at first read, but I also think that you are making it seem less bad than it is.
For one thing, the ruling elevates avoiding "embarrassment" or discomfort above a right of access to facilities. Imagine the reaction if a court proposed to have white persons' (very real) "discomfort" about sharing restrooms with black people (who they view as "threatening") sufficient to maintain "separate but equal" facilities.
And while the ruling suggests that a challenge based on "as applied" rather than facially might succeed, it just as clearly by that very discussion suggests that the court regards the provisions related to non-restroom facilities as valid with all the potential impacts on for one example transgender sports participation that would carry.
Worse, it employs the Archie Bunker school of logical debate ("It's a well-known fact") to say in essence "well, everybody just KNOWS how embarrassing it would be" for cis students without giving any weight (or even, it appears, consideration) to the embarrassment for transgender students - because, I strongly suspect, the court does not appreciate the real difference between sex and gender and so, as Erin notes, "treats transgender students as their assigned sex at birth."
Bottom line: Could have been worse, but is definitely bad.
You're really not disagreeing with me. Everything you're talking about applies to locker rooms and showers and domitories, not to multi-occupancy bathrooms. Including the "embarrassment" argument, which was specifically addressed to seeing people of the so-called opposite biological sex without clothing. The very first thing I said was that it's a horrible decision in the precedential sense EXCEPT as to multi-occupancy bathrooms. And nothing you say has any applicability to that context. Let's take some hope from the decision on that one aspect, and figure out how to deal with the rest. I don't want people to despair completely. Especially since 90% of the comments here express fear specifically about bathrooms, and the implications for for bathroom laws both in the school context and outside it. My main point is that the implications for bathrooms aren't terrible insofar as future litigation is concerned.
"You're really not disagreeing with me."
Well, that's true - because I wasn't saying you were wrong about the possibility of separating out restrooms from other facilities. I was saying that by focusing on that you were diminishing the ruling's overall impact - such as embracing "embarrassment" as an interest sufficient to override a right of access to facilities - and so making it seem less bad than it is.
I will add though, that I'm rather less sanguine than you about the likelihood of success in an "as applied" challenge to restroom access. "Privacy" is a central basis for sex-segregated restrooms in the first place. Faced with the argument that everything relevant takes place in stalls so there's no privacy issue with trans girls and women using the correct restroom, how would courts respond to the objection that then what's the problem with having cis men there?
Short of holding that trans girls and women are in fact girls and women - which instantly re-raises the question about all those other facilities - I don't see an easy way to draw that line. I suspect courts would just dodge it entirely by saying that's not at issue in the present case, but the question will inevitably hang over this and subsequent cases: Are trans folks their gender or aren't they?
Let's just say that we chose to focus on different aspects of the decision. I already explained the reason why I thought it was important to focus on the one aspect that's not disastrous, unlike every other comment and Erin's original post. Especially because everyone else seemed to conclude (wrongly, in my opinion) that the decision is disastrous specifically with respect to multi-occupancy bathrooms. In the context of all the comments taken together, my single point about that single aspect -- accompanied by an express acknowledgment that everything else about the decision is horrible -- doesn't diminish anything. Your lack of sanguinity on that aspect notwithstanding. [Part 1 of 3.]
I see your point here.
In that hypothetical, what about using their willingness to apply common sense (in the current ruling) to make the argument - i.e. hold up a picture of a cis-man and a trans woman, it should be obvious which one would cause privacy concerns to a reasonable person and which would would not?
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if literally "holding up a picture" is viable, but if there is a way, such as an exhibit during oral arguments it seems like it could make a powerful point.
Thanks for the analysis! I just read the full decision as well and also thought it seemed like the multi-use bathroom exclusion part might not hold up in the end.
I also thought I saw a hint that they might consider a distinction between pre-op and post-op at some point in the future, though perhaps not with this particular law because surgeries with minors are rare, but with a simular law applying to non-school environments.
I don't think "carve outs" are something we, as a community should seek, but as an analytical matter I am curious if you are reading it the say way? (see excerpt below from pp. 22 of the decision)
------
Because this is a facial challenge, our analysis does not change when considering S.B. 1100’s discriminatory effect on transgender students because excluding all students, including transgender students who have not undergone gender-realignment surgery, from locker rooms and shower rooms designated for students of the opposite “biological sex” is substantially related to the same privacy interest.
------
I agree with you that the distinction is there, but the problem is that such a carve out would almost never be applicable in schools, as you recognize. How many trans kids in the USA have there ever been who've had gender confirmation surgery before graduating from high school? The number is close to zero even now, despite all the lies about school nurses surgically transitioning third-graders at lunchtime with safety scissors, Scotch tape, and Elmer's Glue! And it certainly will be zero in the future if the present climate continues. As far as applying that distinction in the future to adults in non-school environments like gyms is concerned, I'd rather not speculate. The last thing I'd ever want to do is start drawing invidious distinctions between "pre-op" and "post-op" trans people like it's 1995, and privileging the latter. Notice that Sarah McBride hasn't tried to make that distinction, even though it's public information that she had surgery years ago. Even though she could presumably have raised that issue once Nancy Mace started fulminating on the House floor about not wanting to see dicks in the women's bathroom.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Thanks for your analysis. It's wonderful that our community can draw on such diverse talents and experiences. :-)
I am curious as to your thoughts about a different approach: The way to ensure that ALL students can protect their privacy, dignity, and safety, and avoid embarrassment in intimate spaces, is to mandate that all such spaces single-occupancy or to ensure that multiple-occupancy spaces have completely private areas (e.g. stalls with floor-to-ceiling walls and locking doors. Could that argument not be pitched? That way it's not one person's rights vs. another person's. Nobody need suffer any compromise to their rights. This could apply to restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, or whatever.
I think one factor that needs to be considered is that the poor trans girl has NO CHOICE but to take PE/gym classes and use a locker room. (At least that was true when I was a kid.) Given that she has NO CHOICE, don't we owe it to her, at some level, to make certain her dignity and safety are not compromised?
I am ambivalent about carve-outs, BTW. I personally believe that every person should have the opportunity to find safety, security, even if the path to getting there is hazardous. I say this because being trapped and confined, helpless, powerless to improve your condition, is one of the most psychologically oppressive things a person can face. I mean, our Declaration of Independence refers to our unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness for a reason. Without the ability to pursue a path forward, we wither and die. Just my .02 euros.
I'm not the person you were replying to, and I'd love to hear their thoughts on your question.
FWIW - I think your idea is excellent and I've been thinking it myself recently, especially after reading this court decision. It makes a lot of sense to push for that if 9th circuit framework is what we're dealing with. Of course, unfortunately, SCOTUS might have an entirely different take.
But I think it still might be the right move, it would open up a different front and people would still prolly be better off for the additional privacy. I mean, I can remember dumb shit in the junior high boys room in the early 1990s (long before I transitioned) where nasty kids would wet paper towels in the sink (I hope that's why they were moist) and throw them up and over the stall walls to assault people they didn't like.
I think it's certainly an arguable front (private, single-occupancy spaces for everyone). The counter-argument would be that it would be difficult or expensive. However, these are simply "convenience" arguments, and civil rights should rise above everything else - and traditionally have (e.g. with ADA compliance). It could also be argued that if cost were truly a factor, then perhaps there would be a better use for the billions of dollars that have been spent to malign our community and strike down our civil rights. A compromise position could be that all new construction and renovations require single-occupancy spaces. Make it a national code requirement. We are truly not talking about a lot of money. I just know that when I'm lobbying, this is the sort of argument I can make boldly and assertively. ;-)
I had thought about the cost counter-argument and I think you laid out a good way to deal with that. Everything you said make sense to me.
It's not a word limit, it's a display limit. Your whole comment is there (assuming "a cis student who might use single-occupancy facilities only occasionally" is the end. Someone provided a technical fix which involves getting somewhat into the guts of your browser which I will send if you want it.
Thanks. I can see the entire comment on my phone -- which has an "expand full comment" button -- but not on my desktop, where I can't see any way of expanding it.
So it’s ok if trans girls have to expose their unclothed bodies to boys. Got it. Boys can gawk at girls but girls can’t see other girls.
I swear to God, they always talk about trans people like we just walk into bathrooms and shout "Hey everyone! look at my genitals! See? See!? Seeeeeeeeeeeee!!!???".
I have it on good authority, that is what cis people do
Because they're making shit up. They're even admitting to making it up - as it says in Erin's post. Trans students are not, anywhere, making cisgender students uncomfortable to the point of court ruling. Adults, however, seem to be so *obsessed* with children's genitals that they have deemed it necessary.
It should be noted that the filing published today is a denial to overturn a district court's denial of a request for a preliminary injunction. The language in it is CRAZY but this is NOT a decision on the case itself, just a motion.
It won't make much a difference - the logic and rationale they use here is extreme.
I wonder how soon they figure out their "rationale" -- if this phrase is accurate, "the rights of cisgender people to not have a transgender person in the same bathroom", and I am not disputing it I just haven't read the decision yet -- also lets them keep homosexual and bisexual people out of straight people's bathrooms?
I've been a litigator for over 30 years in federal courts (mostly 1st amendment) and you make a (sadly) excellent point and a possibility. while the case involves cis versus trans, if all of it is based on not having one's body/genitals stared at, there is every possibility that if the case ultimately is decided using the "rationale" in this decision, it's not out of the question that a court could extend the decision. And as Erin points out below, the ongoing tragedies here are that our civilization (as uncivilized as it is, and seems to be regressing to worse) cling to the (what shoud be) outdated notions of assigning sex at birth AND maintaining that there is a need to hide our bodies.
It is extreme as to locker rooms, showers, and dormitories, but as I explain in my other comment, the decision strongly signals that an "as applied" equal protection challenge only to the multi-occupancy restroom aspect of the statute would be likely to succeed. In order to obtain a preliminary injunction against the entire statute on its face, the plaintiff had to show that ALL aspects of the statute were facially unconstitutional.
Possibly, but only because the court treats the students as their assigned sex at birth, which is a horrific precedent.
EXACTLY.
This is an important distinction. The standard for the injunction is rather high. Hopefully the actual ruling on appeal will be different.
Also notable - if the future ruling on the merits is appealed the judges on the panel might be different as they are randomly selected each time.
Different judges on the 9th circuit ruled in 2020 that a schools policy supporting transgender students bathroom use did NOT violates anyone else's rights.
https://gaycitynews.com/ninth-circuit-tosses-another-cisgender-bathroom-suit/
"The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court ruling that a school district in Dallas, Oregon, did not violate the legal rights of parents and students who objected to its policy of allowing transgender students to use bathroom and locker room facilities consistent with their gender identity."
Don't get me wrong though, I'm devastated by this ruling and I definitely think it's a very bad sign in general.
Yup. Unfortunately, as I mention in my piece, this ruling contradicts/dances around that one.
I was so stunned when I read your piece initially I missed that part.
Thanks for your reporting!
Thank you. That is important. It doesn't bode well for the final decision on the merits but until you mentioned it, I was so stunned that I didn't think to even check what type of ruling it was.
I agree with Erin that this is a very alarming ruling (great reporting, thank you!) and I hate that they are drawing any legal distinctions at all based on our sex-assigned-at-birth.
Taking a close look at the full text of the ruling, here are a few details that jumped out to me.
When a court ruling is made on the merits, at the district level or appellate level, the court can strike the entire law or just pieces of it. When the court considers this challenge for a preliminary injunction, the standard is ostensibly "all or nothing". To get the injunction the plaintiff basically has to show that the entire law is likely to fall on the merits (over simplification but that's the jist of it).
The way I read the excerpts below, it looks like the appeals court may well be open to striking the bathroom provision of the law. They seem to acknowledge that nudity between people isn't required or normal in bathrooms and seem focused on places where nudity occurs or plausibly could occur, like locker rooms with without shower curtains.
They also seem to hint that they might at some point make a legal distinction between pre-op and post-op transgender people with these sorts of laws.
Of course none of this is acceptable, as somebody posted recently "we don't want carve outs". And, it's of course not even a distinction that is exists as it relates to schools because we all know, despite MAGAs fear-mongering, surgery is extremely rare for minors.
---additional excerpts from the ruling-----
We acknowledge, as the district court did, that the use of restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and overnight accommodations do not present uniform risks of bodily exposure. See id.; see also Whitaker, 858 F.3d at 1052 (“Common sense tells us that the communal restroom is a place where individuals act in a discreet manner to protect their privacy and those who have true privacy concerns are able to utilize a stall.”).
....
To prevail on its facial challenge to S.B. 1100, SAGA must show that S.B. 1100’s mandated sex-segregation of all covered facilities is unconstitutional; its equal protection claim fails if S.B. 1100’s application to any of the covered facilities survives intermediate scrutiny. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987) (“A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”).9
...
Because this is a facial challenge, our analysis does not change when considering S.B. 1100’s discriminatory effect on transgender students because excluding all students, including transgender students who have not undergone gender-realignment surgery, from locker rooms and shower rooms designated for students of the opposite “biological sex” is substantially related to the same privacy interest.
Oh this is good news!!
Mark my words, there will come a time if they're not stopped when they start "disappearing" us when we go out in public, using rulings like this as justification. I've heard people say "Well it didn't used to be legal, but we survived!" And to that I say "A: Plenty of us didn't, B: This is the first regime in almost 100 years that has prioritized the eradication of trans people on this scale."
Everybody in America HAS to stop them before they get that power. I don't know yet how, but it has to happen.
This is exactly how Hitler started. With pink triangles. Transsexuals, homosexuals.
Uprising and insurrection, unfortunately. From history, that is the only way to stop it. Get armed and get organized.
AGREED! I don't know how yet, either, but we [ALL of us] absolutely must stop them.
I heard a trans podcast yesterday where the hosts were being kind of "Let's take a step back, we don't know that things are going to go so bad. It may just be that we have less rights for a while, but we've lived through that before, and many people in other countries have survived oppressive regimes."
And I just shook my head and thought "Well but we DO know, they told us in Project 2025 and in speeches what they plan to do to us. We don't have to speculate, we only have to wait or stop it before it gets there." One host was saying like "I pass, that's my protection! I'm over all that 'don't need to pass to be valid' junk, I pass for my safety!" and it's like... wow. And what about those who can't, don't, or don't want to? Do they have rights too, or do they just have to conform so that you don't have to actually fight for them???
It sounds alarmist, but what's happening is so insanely unprecedented, and what they've told us they plan to do is doubly insane. I hate sounding alarmist, but like... when the emergency's real, it's real you know?
Even if you pass, they're reverting people passports. What stops them from mandating the same are done with IDs. You aren't safe because you pass. They could care less. Cis people, mostly cis woman, will get caught in the crossfire for "looking trans". Just look at history to say "passing" doesn't mean much.
That's exactly how I felt. I'm lucky I have 3 years left before I need to renew my passport, after that I dunno what'll happen. I don't plan to travel outside Japan (where I'm at) until things change, which may be many years. I'm so afraid of losing my passport and then my visa in turn.
Anyone searching for me or mine will be greeted at my porch with my handguns and long guns and knives. They will NOT take me easily if at all. 🤬🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🏴☠️💜❤️🔥 I want a Gatling gun. https://www.britannica.com/technology/Gatling-gun
The christian filth getting what they wanted, the restoration of the "Panic Defense."
"The christian filth"
Did you see Vance's explanation of how "Christ" endorses tiers of empathy? (And the Biblical example of Christ does not!)
They are not recognizably Christian in any way, they are Latter Day Pharisees with imam envy.
Nope, this is your faith, exposed for all to see. It’s a cult of death and hate. Miss me with #NotAllchristians. Our blood is on your hands.
This is honestly more devastating than the executive orders. I am terrified for trans kids, including here in liberal California -- what with Newsom throwing them to the wolves last week and now this.
Newsom is a phony POS!
that “excluding all students, including transgender students who have not undergone gender-realignment surgery, from locker rooms and shower rooms designated for students of the opposite ‘biological sex’ is substantially related to the same privacy interest.”
———> is this ruling saying that trans people who’ve had top/bottom surgery are still permitted to use their preferred bathroom??
Seems like it. But of course they're banning surgery for minors anyway (even though minors weren't having bottom surgeries). Not sure how this will affect adults, but clearly they're on their way to banning any surgeries.
I just read the full decision and copied below a larger excerpt from that section where surgery was mentioned.
They aren't saying post-op trans people can still use their preferred bathroom. They are emphasizing, in their view, that the law is substantially related to the government's goal of protecting privacy because the exclusion includes pre-op transgender students.
However, the fact that they mention it seems to indicate they are thinking about it and I wouldn't be surprised if in a future ruling they draw a legal distinction around it.
---excerpt
Because this is a facial challenge, our analysis does not change when considering S.B. 1100’s discriminatory effect on transgender students because excluding all students, including transgender students who have not undergone gender-realignment surgery, from locker rooms and shower rooms designated for students of the opposite “biological sex” is substantially related to the same privacy interest.
This makes me sick. But thanks for the update. I’d like to see hundreds of trans men with facial hair swarming bathrooms in states like this, and then let’s see how comfortable cis girls are.
Another idea - Transmen who’ve had bottom surgery should start demanding installation of urinals in all women’s bathrooms. There must be many ways to demonstrate the stupidity of these bee restrictions.
Yes!
new, not bee
Yet again, we are the boogeyman that society fears COULD, at some point in the distant future, if we suddenly changed our entire psychological makeup and became predatory, cause embarrassment to a cis gender person who had not availed themselves of the stall which exists in every ladies' room I have ever seen. The fact that such a threat has never been carried out serves as no defense in the face of what MIGHT, POSSIBLY, COULD happen if things were different. See how easy it is to think like they do? All you have to do is completely suspend reality and accept that a make believe universe MIGHT, COULD POSSIBLY exist. What I know DOES exist in our REAL universe is that a transgender girl in a men's room is GOING TO BE assaulted. We have actual evidence of THAT happening, but oh well....
I've dealt with a predator.
He wasn't trans. He was just a sickening pervert who preferred children.
Patricia,
First, I’m so sorry you had to experience something THAT traumatic. No one deserves to be victimized like that. Again, I’m sorry.
A part of me wonders if your predator went on to be a proud member of MAGA. My suspicion is that there are a number of such people hiding within their ranks. Most authoritarian groups seem to serve as refuge for such people. I think there is a direct relationship between being a pervert and how loudly they express their contempt.
The way they sanitized an explicit view of trans people through stereotype and bigotry with the term "common experience".
Have they used a public bathroom? I’ve never seen an unclothed body in a bathroom.
Me neither. Except I guess at gay bars in the 1990s but that's a whole other thing..... the rooms weren't really being used as bathrooms at that point.
WTF 🤬 Even judges appointed by Democrats are denying trans kids their rights and safety. This should be surprising. Instead, it is chilling and terrifying.
"Issued by a majority Democratic-appointed panel in the 9th Circuit, it marks the first significant decision in which Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against transgender protections."
Here are my takes:
1) Maga doesn't have empthatly or caring so they should NOT have an issue with a transgender female in the bathroom with them. Also, maga are NOT snowflakes and don't care about feelings so why care about their supposed feelings?
2) if the djt administration doesn't care about rogue judges then neither do I. And I pay taxes.
3) this also means that parents cannot take their opposite sex child into their public bathroom anymore as it “MIGHT” make someone, someday uncomfortable.
Though in maga land they like the young girls.
This is the heart of the decision right here: "That some students in a state of partial undress may experience “embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury” in the presence of students of a different sex is neither novel nor implausible." All the reasoning about the equal protection and Title IX arguments rests on this (and the court's implication that "sex" = sex assigned at birth for these purposes.)
... most students in a state of partial undress may experience those things in the presence of other students, full stop. what the hell, 9th circuit? Christen's an Obama appointee, too.
How can the presence of a trans girl in a girls' bathroom violate cis girls' privacy? Unless the stalls don't have doors, in which case their privacy would be violated by ANYONE else in the restroom. At least, that's how I feel about it. And as for locker rooms, I always hated them. Getting undressed in front of anyone is anathema to me.