Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2022).pdf/73

 Q: And what would that mean vis-à-vis bathroom usage?

A: Based on how they enrolled, they would have access to that restroom that corresponded with how we coded it in the system at the time of enrollment. D.E. 162 at 35–36.

And so was the testimony of Frank Upchurch, the School Board’s attorney:

Q: Let’s assume … just a hypothetical, a student transfers in. The enrollment form is clicked male. The birth certificate says male. And all the other documents on the papers indicate male. And for purposes of St. Johns County’s way of determining biological sex, we have a male, but the student is actually a biological female.

Does that raise any concern from the district’s perspective, that situation?

A: As a practical matter, I would say no. The district does not play bathroom cop. …

….

Q: If you had a transgender boy in your hypothetical who came with all the paperwork checked off that’s consistent with his gender identity, you would agree with me, sir, that at that point in time the school district would have no reason to question that individual’s use of the boys’ bathroom, yes?

A: I agree with that, yes.