Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2021).pdf/19

 We now turn to the dissent. Insofar as the dissent suggests this opinion opens the floodgates for vast societal change, it is only because the dissent has decided to reframe the issue in this way. This case is only about Mr. Adams’s as-applied challenge to the School District’s policy denying him the ability to use the boys’ bathroom at Nease High School. The dissent also spills much ink over the former (now vacated) panel opinion. The majority of the pages in the dissent are directed at an opinion no longer in existence. Indeed much of the dissent continues to shadowbox with an opinion we never wrote. We view the dissent’s recycling of outdated arguments as an apt metaphor for its analytical approach.

We begin by setting the record straight on a few issues. The dissent argues that “relying on enrollment documents is not an arbitrary means of determining sex.” Dissenting Op. at (cleaned up). We understand the dissent to be making three subsidiary claims in support of that assertion. First, the dissent says our