Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2020).pdf/28

 bathroom policy singles out Mr. Adams for different treatment because he is transgender. It excludes him from the restroom matching his gender identity and gives him little choice but to use the restroom in isolation from his peers. , 858 F.3d at 1045 (affirming a preliminary injunction because a school district caused irreparable harm to a student “when it dismissed him to a separate [gender-neutral] bathroom” and “stigmatized [him], indicating that he was ‘different’ because he was a transgender boy”). Of course the School Board here treated Mr. Adams with more respect than the employer in. School officials used Adams’s male pronouns, permitted him to wear boys’ clothes to school, and did not interfere with his decision to identify openly as transgender. Nevertheless, the Constitution does not tolerate any form of gender stereotyping on the basis of one’s birth sex and sexual organs. , 663 F.3d at 1316–17.

The School Board repeats its concern that allowing Mr. Adams to use the boys’ restroom could allow “a non-transgender student to pose as a gender-fluid student to access the bathroom.” But again, the Board offers no evidence that any students claiming to be gender-fluid have asked for access to all bathroom facilities. We remain unpersuaded that this concern is anything more than hypothetical.

The School Board also believes allowing Mr. Adams access to the boys’ restroom threatens the time-honored convention of separate bathrooms for men and