In 2015, a Virginia high school was sued for a policy maintaining single-sex restrooms and locker rooms. Three years after graduation, Gavin Grimm, a female student who announced before her sophomore year that she identified as male, is still pursuing litigation against the school board. The Gloucester County School board has stood their ground in defending the policy. Following a loss in a federal court, the school’s most recent appeal means that the case could make its way to the Supreme Court.
When Grimm first announced to school administrators that she identified as male, they allowed her to use the restroom in the nurse’s office. Grimm complained that this was stigmatizing and insisted on using the boys’ restroom. When parents expressed concern, the school adopted a policy that required students to use restrooms and locker rooms corresponded with their biological sex, while also making unisex, single-stall restrooms available to any student who wished to use them. In response, Grimm sued with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, alleging that the school had violated Title IX and discriminated against her on the basis of sex. In 2017, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts, leading to three more years of court battles. In the case’s most recent development, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Grimm, prompting the school to appeal for a full review of the case.
In their decision, the 4th Circuit Court cited the recent Bostock decision, and ACLU’s James Esseks commented, “We’re using Bostock everywhere, just about, in all these other contexts – education, health care, housing.” Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion for Bostock that the ruling did not “purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.” As Minnesota Family Council’s Renee Carlson noted at the time, the Bostock ruling left many questions unanswered and invited further lawsuits against people who affirm the reality of biological sex. The continuing litigation against Gloucester County School Board is just one example of this, and the school’s request for a full review makes it likely that the case could head to the Supreme Court, especially considering the Court’s insistence that Bostock did not address bathrooms and locker rooms.
People who are struggling with gender dysphoria should be treated with compassion and dignity, but compassion for one person cannot come at the expense of another, nor does compassion affirm something that is not true. The school respected Grimm’s dignity by offering reasonable accommodations, and Grimm refused to accept those accommodations. This was not discrimination on the part of the school, but a reasonable decision to protect the privacy of all students.
The voices of students who have been dismissed as they speak up against the LGBT movement’s insistence on allowing students to access restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of their gender identity rather than their biological sex highlight why this case matters. Following a school board meeting in Illinois that approved such a policy, a tearful female athlete begged for a solution that would not compromise her privacy by forcing her to undress in front of a member of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, the LGBT lobby is unwilling to accept reasonable solutions.
The accommodations that Gloucester County School offered to Grimm protected the safety and privacy of everyone involved, and they have stood by their policy, rather than caving to the demands of the LGBT lobby. Students should not have to give up their privacy and dignity when they walk through the doors of their school, and a school’s choice to protect the safety and privacy of their students should not be controversial—it should be expected and required.
