Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2022).pdf/43

 Title IX’s general prohibition against sex discrimination, this Court must still determine whether the application of the policy fits into Title IX’s carve-out, which it does. An example makes this clear.

Think of a biological female student, who does not identify as transgender and who sued her school under Title IX to gain access to the male bathroom. Regardless of whether preventing the female student from using the male bathroom would constitute separation on the basis of sex—and it plainly would—the carve-out for bathrooms under Title IX would provide the school a safe harbor. In other words, because Title IX explicitly provides for separate bathrooms on the basis of sex, the student’s claim would fail. So, too, must Adams’s claim, because the carve-out for bathrooms provides the School Board a safe harbor for the same reasons.

In summary, Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, but it expressly permits separating the sexes when it comes to