At least one trans-antagonistic lawsuit loses

With the largely patchwork approach to trans rights, we’re starting to see the United States split in twain along the exact same fault lines it does for every single other social issue.

Illinois is one of the many states in which a lawsuit was filed alleging that a trans girl’s existence constitutes a privacy violation (I’m not even exaggerating–that’s the argument) and thankfully, this lawsuit has suffered its first blow.

Throughout the recommendation, Gilbert laid out in detail why these students are not harmed by sharing a space with a transgender classmate. Indeed, they are not even required to share a space with her, as there are alternative restrooms that they may use. If they’re uncomfortable, they can voluntarily use a different facility or make use of a privacy stall withoutforcing transgender students to be ostracized to other spaces.

Though the plaintiffs — who insistently misgendered Student A throughout their briefs — would disagree, Gilbert agreed that “a transgender person’s gender identity is an important factor to be considered in determining whether his or her needs, as well as those of cisgender people, can be accommodated in the course of allocating or regulating the use of restrooms and locker rooms. So, to frame the constitutional question in the sense of sex assigned at birth while ignoring gender identity frames it too narrowly for the constitutional analysis.”

The student plaintiffs’ claim that a transgender student would violate their sense of privacy and safety was not convincing. “There is absolutely no evidence in this record that allowing transgender high school students to use restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity increases the risk of sexual assault,” Gilbert pointed out in a footnote. He also highlighted that the military now “allows transgender personnel to serve openly and fully integrated in all military services” and the NCAA “includes transgender student-athletes in collegiate sports consistent with their gender identity.”

“Neither the Restroom Policy nor the Locker Room Agreement shocks the conscience,” he wrote. Given the accommodations available, “put simply, this case does not involve any forced or involuntary exposure of a student’s body to or by a transgender person assigned a different sex at birth.”

What is refreshing to see is a legal professional actually using the same terms recommended by gender affirmative healthcare models. That makes it rather clear what the trans-antagonistic demands actually are: Stop existing.