Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2021).pdf/31

 (“Let’s suppose there was a transgender boy … who transfers into the school district, moves from another state, in ninth grade, with the box checked as ‘M.’ The School District would accept that he is a boy for the purposes of restroom usage, is that right?” School District: “That’s correct.”). It is not right for the dissent to now make arguments the School Board never made for itself by claiming the issues being decided today were not properly teed up. They were. They were addressed in this litigation repeatedly through the standard course of record development, briefing, and oral argument. Today’s ruling falls squarely within the ordinary course of appellate review, and we may undoubtedly affirm the District Court’s ruling based on the Equal Protection Clause after our independent review of the law. , 790 F.3d at 1257.
 * 3. The Dissenting Opinion Wrongly Relies on Statistics for Its Equal Protection Analysis

The dissent’s insistence that the policy passes heightened review because it is “accurate,” Dissenting Op. at, misapprehends intermediate scrutiny. The