Is SCOTUS right to leave transgender bathroom ruling in place?

Andrew (Yes)

The Supreme Court has once again ruled correctly in deciding not to rehear the Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board case regarding transgender bathroom use. This is indeed the right decision because it affirms the basic humanity of these individuals. Simply put, trans women are women, and it is cruel and unnecessary to deny them access to public spaces simply because of how they were born or their medical history.

Many opposing trans individuals' right to use the bathroom associated with their gender identity claim that the practice will allow male predators into women's facilities, possibly endangering them. The fact of the matter is that there is simply no hard evidence that this is truly the case. Places such as New York and California have allowed individuals to use their choice of bathroom for over a decade, and there simply isn't evidence of this occurring. Also, many school leaders and groups such as the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence have publicly stated that they have found no proof of this phenomenon.

Finally, it's time for those opposing trans rights to give up on this issue. The courts have ruled repeatedly in favor of trans rights, and years of the practice being in place have proven it is safe. Bathrooms are private spaces; there is simply no need to know the gender of the person behind a closed door. The only thing we should really care about in regards to bathrooms is that people wash their hands when they are finished. 

Stephanie (No)

The Supreme Court's recent ruling regarding transgender bathrooms pertains to Gavin Grimm's experience at Gloucester High School, at which time he was a minor. Adolescents undeniably face struggles as they transition through puberty and into adulthood; however, they are not mentally developed enough to decide that they are suddenly of the opposite sex from birth. While much of the media and the LGBTQ+ community promote the 'inclusion' of persons with this sexual dysphoria, many others would argue it as blatant child abuse, glorifying a mental illness and pushing permanent, body-altering procedures onto confused minors.

It is not hateful or an exaggeration to say so, either. Transgenderism is, by medical definition, a mental illness—gender dysphoria. However, it affects less than one percent of the population. It arguably should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis instead of changing school policies entirely, as there is still the concern that allowing persons of the opposite sex to use a shared restroom increases the risk of potential sexual assault. Bathrooms are also generally very private, so it is almost guaranteed to make at least one person uncomfortable even if such never occurs.

During the hearing, Grimm claimed that he was singled out and 'humiliated' from being forced to use a restroom in the nurse's office. However, what about the humiliation natal women might feel when they encounter male bodies, for example, in strictly female-only spaces, such as changing rooms? This ruling has already been called a 'win' for the transgender community; the Supreme Court making a ruling in approval of the contradictory trans ideology is not productive in assuring the safety of children in schools.