You would be hard pressed to find a more frivolous issue than the Transgender Bathroom Debate.
Yet somehow the mental condition referred to as gender dysphoria has become a serious civil rights debate. We get that the miniscule number of people with the condition are uncomfortable and sometimes feel distressed.
There are lots of things in life that are uncomfortable or distressing. Which bathroom to use is not one of them.
Gender dysphoria is a problem more appropriately addressed by a psychiatrist or psychologist. It is not a matter that requires the redefinition of sex or gender or the tortured interpretation of Title IX.
The courts have important issues to decide. This is not one of them.
Supreme Court won’t hear transgender bathroom case
BY LYDIA WHEELER – 03/06
The Supreme Court scrapped the case it was expected to hear later this month on whether transgender students should be allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.
The court tossed out the lower court ruling Monday that allowed Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy in Virginia, to use the bathroom he chooses and ordered the lower court to reconsider the case in light of new guidance documents issued by the Trump administration last month.
The court asked both parties in the case to submit their views on how the case should proceed since the lower court had deferred to the Obama-era guidance.
Both sides had said the justices should hear the case as planned.
The case centers on Grimm, born female, who was barred from using the boy’s bathroom in 2014 after the Gloucester County School Board enacted a policy requiring all students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender assigned at birth.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Grimm, who argued that the school board “impermissibly discriminated against him” in violation of Title IX anti-discrimination laws and his constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
The court said the Obama administration guidance should be given deference because federal anti-discrimination laws are ambiguous when it comes to “sex.”
But on Feb. 22, about a month before oral arguments in the case were scheduled to be heard, the Department of Justice and the Education Department sent a letter to the court rescinding that guidance “in order to further and completely consider the legal issues involved” because the Obama administration had failed to “explain how the position is consistent with the express language of Title IX.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which brought the case forward on Grimm’s behalf, told the court in its response letter on March 1 that the Trump administration’s action has only made it more urgent for the court to resolve the question of whether Title IX can be extended to require schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity when it comes to bathroom facilities.
The ACLU said the document notes that the courts have reached different conclusions, but refrains from taking any affirmative position with respect to whether the statute and regulation do — or do not — allow schools to exclude boys and girls who are transgender from using the same restrooms as other boys and girls.
“Without the opinion letter referenced in the first question presented, and without any other specific guidance left to defer to, the Court will inevitably have to settle the question by clarifying the proper interpretation of Title IX,” the group said.