Girl claiming to be boy wins restroom case thanks to Supreme punt


A girl who says she is a boy – and demanded to use the boys’ restroom facilities during high school – has won her fight because the Supreme Court on Monday refused to review the situation.

The precedent, however, only affects the district of the country covered by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because it is that panel’s decision that was left standing.

Fox News reported while the court refused to accept the case, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would have accepted the case.

At issue was the fight between Gavin Grimm, the student who has since graduated, and the Gloucester County, Virginia, school board. It appealed a 2020 ruling by the 4th Circuit that Grimm is protected under Title IX, a federal statute barring discrimination based on sex.

That lower court’s opinion claimed that the decades-old law, adopted in 1972, meant when Congress adopted the law members wanted specifically to protect transgenders.

Grimm sued in 2015 when school officials when they, faced with the prospect of having male students’ privacy rights violated by allowing a girl in their midst, offered her the option a a private restroom. She refused.

President Biden, when he took office this year, came out strongly in support of allowing boys into girls’ private facilities such as showers, and vice versa, including in schools.

Reports contend that Grimm was “assigned female gender at birth,” and explain she now identifies “as male.”

The battle is just one of many developing across America as transgenders and those who support other alternative sexual lifestyles seek not just tolerance, but acceptance and even enthusiastic support from society, despite the obvious conflict with the biblical principles evident in many of America’s founding documents.

President Trump had moved to protect single-sex restrooms and showers in public schools, but that immediately was reversed when Biden took office.

The Supreme Court ruled, just last year, that nondiscrimination laws protect LGBT citizens in employment.

Critics of the 4th Circuit’s decision explained in Title IX, “sex” “clearly referred to physiological distinctions between males and females and that the law itself allows “separate … facilities for the different sexes.”

They noted Grimm didn’t challenge the constitutionality of the law, and she never “established that biological females (who were identified as male) were similarly situated to (cisgender) biological males, so as to trigger the Equal Protection Clause.”

They also noted since the lower court adopted the terminology used by Grimm, the judges were revealing their bias against the school district.

A brief in the case noted the lower court panel “referred to biological sex as ‘assigned sex’ as if it existed only arbitrarily in the mind of a physician. It also exhibited religious animus, describing a former lesbian who left that lifestyle when she became a Christian by including that among ‘ugly’ comments opposing special rights to Grimm.”

The filing further raised a potentially explosive issue that has yet to be answered.

“If the Fourth Circuit’s decision is allowed to stand, why would the same logic not allow a white person to self-identify as a (trans-racial) black person to claim Equal Protection coverage, leaving Equal Protection jurisprudence in a terrible mess? Then, Equal Protection could be triggered by anyone who chooses to self-identify into a protected class or a quasi-protected class, merely based on subjective ‘feelings.'”

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts