Here’s the Minnesota decision ending bodily privacy for students across the state. As usual these days, it cites the Bostock decision to bolster its reasoning.

Here’s more evidence that this decision, like the others, was reached in a haze of confusion, encouraged by gender advocates, where the decision says, “requiring a transgender student to use a different locker-room facility because of his sexual orientation is discrimination ...”

This social transition, taking a new name, changing hair styles, and dressing “in a traditionally masculine fashion,” is given as evidence of a “male gender identity” for someone “born female.”

Here’s the link: https://mn.gov/mdhr/assets/N.H.%20%26%20Lucero%20v%20Anoka-Hennepin%20School%20District_tcm1061-448605.pdf

Minn. Stat. § 363 A.03, subd. 44, bizarrely, includes this in the definition of sexual orientation: “having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness.”

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/363A.03

Note here that single-sex facilities operate under exceptions granted in law from otherwise straightforward nondiscrimination protections. Minnesota students lost locker room privacy because the exception for other public accommodations wasn’t granted in education contexts.

Again from the decision: “N.H. Is similarly situated to other males because he identifies as male.”

The ruling immediately proceeds then, having thrown sex aside as a consideration, to acknowledge that it exists.

That, right before stating, “The school district correctly contends that we and other federal courts have held men and women are not similarly situated when a distinction is based on physiological differences between unclothed male and female body parts.”

&^&*^^$#$%^ (*%$$%$

Are they ^%^%$%^$ kidding us?

Next page, “the school district’s inference that N.H. Is physically female is contrary to caselaw. ... Thus the only “relevant respect[]” we may assess on the record before us is gender identity, and there is no dispute that N.H. And his cisgender peers both identify as male.”

This is where being ‘nice’ and using terms like “cis” or “cisgender” gets us: with judges who claim in apparent sincerity both that they know physical anatomy is important, and also that someone can “identify” as having it or not.

No one can prove that the referenced “transgender status” or “gender identity” refer to an objective class of person, but: “The Plaintiffs are being distinguished by governmental action from those whose gender identities are congruent with their assigned sex.”

What can it possibly mean to “live as male” if you aren’t anatomically a male, except by reference to everything else besides the physical body? Hair, clothes, names, language, preferences for going into one room over another, these things don’t have a sex, which is the question.

“Whitaker applies equally to bathrooms and locker rooms when it stated that ‘A transgender student’s presence in the restroom provides no more of a risk to other students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex ...’”

If there are people in gender critical or radical feminist circles who still believe that legal recognition of sex won’t be obliterated by the inclusion of “gender identity” and “transgender status” in law, after even a cursory reading of this decision, what even to say?