The case of G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester City Sch. Bd. sets an important precedent in the gender identity of the transgender persons and the treatment they should receive in public facilities. In this case, the applicant was born a male, but began to transition to a female in his teens. The main issue of determination in an appeal is whether denying a male transgender access to boy’s bathroom could be construed to be a form of discrimination falling under Title IX protection. As of now, the issue is limited to use in public bathrooms, but will have a reaching effect on local laws and protection in shared facilities. The decision is especially important in a sporting department, as it would affect the allocation of changing rooms, and team membership to avoid gender imbalances.
Background
Initially, the protection given rights under the article IX depends on the proper identification of one's gender. One had to be an ascertainable male or female for the force of the provision to take effect. Transitioning stage in transgender case elicits much discrimination. For the longest period, courts have remained steadfast that discrimination on any gender transformation violates Title IX law. In the case of Smith v City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (Buzuvis, 2013), an employer suspended the complainant when she informed her employer that she would undergo a complete transformation to a male. The court found this discrimination uncalled. It is disgusting the world does not contemplate that males could also fall victim of discrimination within their patriarchal structures.
Transgender individuals are minorities and constitute a small fraction of the American citizens. Ridicule and public stigma leave them without the courage to champion their rights until currently. In G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester City Sch. Bd. case, the school board, made a decision to prevent a biologically male teenager from using the males’ public bathrooms. Protection of gays and transgender issues is a controversial issue. Before this case, North Carolina passed a law to eradicate protection of the two groups’ use of public bathrooms. The situation in Houston is similar where voters declined the effect of a bill that sought to extend protection for the two categories. In the past, courts did not consider the distinction between discrimination on sex and gender orientation any different for Title IX protection. In the Isaacs v. Felder, 2015 WL 6560655 the seating judges observed that both are forms of discrimination banned in Title IX law.
The battle on transgender discrimination is slowly reaching to its fruitions. The courts are slowly beginning to reach a consensus that transgender persons also fall within the protection of Title IX law. The ruling in the case of Grimm v. Gloucester City Sch. Bd. in favor of transgender teen sets an important precedent that has seen states reform their laws to extend the protection of law. Mississippi for instance, has enacted a law to protect gays and transgender from discrimination in the use of public facilities (Hart, 2014). Notably, these prejudices begin to emerge during the transition stage. The courts have retained a tough approach and bans discrimination based on a transition from one gender to another. In Glenn v Brumby 663 F.3d 1312 for instance, the court found for the complainant on the alleged termination based on transitioning from male to female. In this case, the court noted that this discrimination although defer fundamentally, it is still of the same kind as it is based on gender stereotypes contrary to Title IX provisions. A similar decision was reached in the case of EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 3d 594, 2015 where the court observed that funeral home fired the accused, transgender, because he did not conform to sex- based Preferences. Besides, in the recent developments, courts place a significant emphasis on the distinction between sex discrimination and sex orientation. Initially, courts would interpret Title IX to cases limited to sexual discrimination. However, this position has changed. In the case of Videckis v Pepperdine University, 2015 WL 8916764, the court declined the argument of Pepperdine University to strike down the case of the plaintiff on the ground of distinction between sex discrimination and orientation. The court observed that sex orientation is a form of gender discrimination prohibited by Title IX. The decision in Grimm v Gloucester City Sch. Bd. takes justice to a higher bar by banning discrimination in public facilities.
Conclusion
Transgender identity is a major issue in sports today (Collins, 2014). The public, legal apparatus, and public departments are yet to come to terms with the reality of transitioning males in the society. However, the current case may be limited to the use of public bathrooms, but the implication will have much impact on the way we treat transgender in many other areas within the sports department. First, it will determine the protection we give them in sports shared facilities such as resting and changing rooms. Importantly, transgender identity trickles down to safety and the privacy of these institutions. Safety and privacy are important requirements in the sports department. Gender identity is important in the sports world. Logically, it is erroneous to argue that a male who begins to mutate into female should be treated as one. This is the rationale behind Grimm v. Gloucester City case. The reasoning of the court on the issue matters. Well, in a sporting department, the idea of purely transgender bathrooms and other shared facilities would be unreasonable. With a proper appreciation of court position, it would be easy to find out how to share resources and facilities. Secondly, the emphasis of courts on the gender on the birth certificate is crucial and helps the sports department to deal with masquerading, a common problem in the industry. This consideration will impart fairness, eventually. Among the transgender, looks are indisputably deceiving. Wrongful determination of one's gender is likely to accord unfair competitive advantage or disadvantage. Within the scope of the law, the decision is a milestone in reducing real and potential discrimination cases. The decision would help to reform games regulations to reduce real and actual instances of discrimination. Lastly, the team one joins peg on the ascertainable gender of a person. In light of the decision of this case, it would be outright discrimination to bar one from joining a certain team based on external physic. The decision helps to set rules to discern the identity before admitting a person to a given team without paying much preference to any form of transition.
References
Buzuvis, E. (2013). 'On the Basis of Sex': Using Title IX to Protect Transgender Students from Discrimination in Education. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, 28, 219.
Collins, M. (2014). Sport and social exclusion. Routledge.
Hart, L. (2014). With inadequate protection under the law, transgender students fight to access restrooms in public schools based on their gender identity. N. Ky. L. Rev., 41, 315 http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/152056.p.pdf
