Bathroom Policy Back in Court
RICHMOND, Va., May 16, 2017 /Christian Newswire/ — Yesterday, Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a Virginia school board on the so-called bathroom transgender decision in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board. The brief was filed on behalf of Dr. Judith Reisman and the Center for Child Protection Institute.
The Supreme Court previously blocked the decision by the appeals court which ruled that the federal law known as Title IX should be interpreted to include “gender identity” and that a girl who “identifies” as a boy can use the boy’s restroom. The case was sent back to the court of appeals after President Trump rescinded Obama’s transgender guidance that schools had to adopt a policy allowing students to use the restroom of their “self-identity.”
The student bringing the lawsuit, Gavin Grimm, a 17-year-old high school senior, is a biological girl who now says she subjectively “identifies” as a “boy.” When Grimm began using the boys’ restroom, parents complained. Then the school board adopted a policy requiring students to use either the restroom that corresponds with their biological gender or a private, single-stall restroom.
Liberty Counsel states in the brief: “Interpreting Title IX to include ‘gender identity,’ and particularly, to compel districts to permit access to sex-separate facilities based solely on ‘perceived’ gender, conflicts the statute’s purpose to ‘provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students.’ Moreover, advocacy for recognition of ‘transgender’ children fosters experimental, life-changing medical protocols that do not comply with the dictates of medical ethics. Most importantly, such advocacy sanctions an agenda-driven ideology that threatens the physical, mental and emotional well-being of children.”
“The federal law does not allow persons to subjectively think, and therefore legally become, the opposite of their biological sex,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Giving legal credence to a biological impossibility would undermine the law and cause chaos and significant harm,” said Staver.