Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2018).pdf/51

 Though not an Equal Protection Clause case, the Third Circuit’s recent decision (which rejected claims by cisgender students that transgender students in the restrooms violated Title IX and Pennsylvania privacy law), likely eviscerates any persuasive value  retained. , 893 F.3d 179. Likewise, the Equal Protection analysis in (which cites  and other authorities which permitted different treatment based on meaningful differences in physiology, 203 F. Supp. 3d at 642–45) is not persuasive in light of, the other authorities that have considered this issue, and the evidence in this case (which reveals that the multi-stall school bathrooms at Nease have individual stalls with doors that afford privacy and that all students have access to gender-neutral single-stall bathrooms for those who want additional privacy).

Although there was no testimony on the issue, the parties stipulated that some parents and students in the St. Johns County School District object to a policy permitting transgender students to use a restroom matching their gender identity, believing the policy “would violate the bodily privacy rights of students and raise[s] concerns for their privacy, safety and welfare.” Doc. 116 at § I (p. 22). There are cases where parents have removed their children from public school and/or have sued a school district over a transgender bathroom policy. ,, 893