Relations Reporting on marriage, family, and sexuality

The end of the bathroom wars?

Sexuality | The Supreme Court stays silent as parents’ and students’ rights erode
by Mary Jackson
Posted 12/11/20, 12:12 pm

The nation’s highest court signaled this week that appeasing LGBT activism takes precedence over protecting children from the intrusion of transgender ideology on their bodies and beliefs.

With little fanfare, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sidelined a case brought by parents and students in northwestern Oregon against the local school district and its “School Safety Plan” that permitted students who identify as the opposite sex to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity.

The parents sued after Dallas High School in Dallas, Ore., not only allowed a female student who identified as a boy to use the boys’ locker room but also told classmates they had no right to dissent. The lawsuit claims the principal threated to discipline students who circulated a petition of objection and told their parents it viewed disagreement with the school policy as “intolerance and bigotry.”

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit and the parents’ argument that the policy infringed on a plethora of rights such as the students’ rights to privacy, equal protection under the law, and free expression of religion and the parents’ rights to raise their children and direct their education. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, and the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the case.

“A confirmation of our children’s bodily privacy right at the highest court in the nation would have preempted what we expect to see—which is that our young girls will have no safe spaces where they can expect physical privacy,” said Victoria Cobb, a mother of four and president of The Family Foundation of Virginia.

This past summer, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that a federal civil rights law barring employers from discriminating “on the basis of sex” covered gender identity and sexual orientation. Despite the justices’ insistence that the decision applied specifically to employment situations, lower courts have already referenced the decision as a reason to advance other transgender demands, including letting people use sex-specific public facilities according to the gender with which they identify.

The Supreme Court’s decision was “shortsighted … and more far-reaching than I think they realize,” said Brenda Lebsack, a physical education teacher in the Santa Ana, Calif., Unified School District and a former board member for the Orange Unified School District.

Citing Bostock, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August ruled the restroom usage rules of a Virginia school board discriminated against a former transgender high school student who goes by the name of Gavin Grimm. “After the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, we have little difficulty holding that a bathroom policy precluding Grimm from using the boys restrooms discriminated against him ‘on the basis of sex,’” the court said.

A separate federal appeals court in August ruled a Florida school board violated students’ rights by requiring them to use restrooms that match their biological sex.

LGBT advocates applauded the Supreme Court’s decision in the Oregon case, especially considering its conservative majority and the recent confirmation of pro-life, Catholic Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It sends “an important and powerful message to trans and nonbinary youth that they deserve to share space with … their non-transgender peers,” said Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project.

Lebsack noted that transgenderism now encompasses terms such as “nonbinary” and “gender fluid,” according to new standards put out by the National Education Association.

“Students who identify as gender fluid can fluctuate between male/female facilities—such as a cabin, locker room, or bathroom—anytime they choose,” Lebsack said. “For school employees to refuse access means an accusation of discrimination or harassment. … This will cause school personnel, parents, and other students to be at the mercy of however a student chooses to ‘self-certify’ or ‘identify’ on that given day.”

Mary Jackson

Mary is a book reviewer and reporter for WORLD. She is a World Journalism Institute and Greenville University graduate who previously worked for the Lansing (Mich.) State Journal. Mary resides with her family in the San Francisco Bay area. Follow her on Twitter @mbjackson77.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
    Posted: Fri, 12/11/2020 01:04 pm

    The Justices are going by the law, (though I think misinterpreting it).  Righting this wrong requires rewriting the law.  Congress must do that, not the courts.  The US House and Senate must change the law to clearly conform to God's standards.

  • plumbbetter
    Posted: Fri, 12/11/2020 05:26 pm

    Good luck on that!!


    Posted: Sat, 12/12/2020 06:00 pm

    plumbbetter, I take it you would agree a change in the law would be appropriate, just that you don't think our lawmakers are willing to do it.

    In 1990, the US Supreme Court [mis]interpreted the then current law as saying a law could infringe our religious freedom so long as that law applied equally to everyone.  To correct that, congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Steve West, Supreme Court strengthens anti-persecution law).  We need a similar act of congress now, to correct multiple courts' misinterpretation of gender identity, conforming it to God's intent.

    And, we must not let what appears possible determine what we work for, speak up for, and pray for.

  • RC
    Posted: Fri, 12/11/2020 01:53 pm

    I like that the title of this story ends with a question mark. I think the war has just started. I believe the key is for the moral majority to put the pressure on Legislators to pass laws that uphold common sense and protect child safety. This can be done based on science. Those students with the “XY“, chromosomes attend one bathroom those with just the “X” chromosome attend the other. End of story.  “Feelings” have no part and are not an acceptable criterial for who uses what bathroom.

  • BF
    Posted: Fri, 12/11/2020 02:13 pm

    Meanwhile, how many young women need get hurt from predators taking advantage of the situation. Insanity!

  •  West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Fri, 12/11/2020 03:03 pm

    Re: Barry

    New laws won't matter. These days, nearly everything gets appealed to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the issue falls right back in their court.

    What needs to happen is creation of new bathrooms or retrofitting older ones for private stalls. Parents should focus in their own districts on the "love" aspect of providing for all students' needs and preferences even-handedly. Private stalls are the way to go in the future.

  • DP
    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 07:51 pm

    I agree. Until schools and businesses are retro-fitted so that each individual will get their own private bathroom (sink and stool for bathrooms; individual shower and changing space for locker room). Yes, it will be very expensive. But until there is individual space for each person, there will always be those who will push that the minority not be traumatized because the majority are uncomfortable or traumatized.

    There are places I no longer shop or patronize because of bathroom situations. Apparently they don't want my business and I don't feel the need to give it to them. I don't have kids, but I would have to pull them out of an environment where anyone can use whichever bathroom they feel comfortable using regardless of their biological sex.

  • plumbbetter
    Posted: Fri, 12/11/2020 05:25 pm

    The "Religion of Wokeness" getting stronger every day. SMH I don't think anyone in America is prepaired for the cost.


    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 08:29 am

    Maybe the term "mixed-gender bathrooms" would better describe allowing opposite gender students into a bathroom or locker room. Even if they pretend to be the same gender, they aren't. So once a girl is allowed in a boy's locker room the school is actually saying boys and girls can go to any locker room they choose. Thus the locker rooms are no longer "single-gender" and are simply two rooms that anyone can use as they prefer. The school cannot maintain such their false distinction in their immoral quest to uphold the rights of students who want to use whatever room they choose.