You didn't think of this in high school because the authorities of the time would not have cooperated, the courts would not have heard the case, and various interested parties would have rained cuffs and blows upon you for your effrontery. It was a different time. Also, this, which is timeless:





(I have a relative who, at ten, has "switched gender identification" with the moral support of the parents, who've apparently seen this coming for some years. I am myself somewhat nonplussed at this development, but after expressing a cautious reservation to the effect that this might be a little early to be making such a decision I was persuaded that I had nothing to add to the discussion and less than no standing to join it, and so sensibly shut up. All parties have my silent best wishes going forward.)

cordially,

(Also: take into account the "edit" notation below.)

"This decision makes me extremely happy -- because of what it means for me, personally, and for countless others," the student said. "The district's policy stigmatized me, often making me feel like I was not a 'normal person.'"

While I'm inclined to think that normality is overrated (as mmoffitt is fond of reminding us, people who prefer same-gender sexual partners probably represent well under ten percent of the population and are accordingly not "normal," but so what?), it seems to me incontestably true that an XY teenager self-identifying as female is an exceptional case and accordingly also not normal. Of course, Stephen Hawking as a particularly brilliant physicist who has survived with ALS for several decades longer than most sufferers also fails to meet the normality standard—but I digress.

To address the question, the teenage girls are certainly entitled to input on the issue of shower entry, and I presume that this was provided on their behalf in the course of the court proceedings, to which I was not privy. This is not an easy or simple issue, or we would not be reading about it. I presume—and bear with me here, because I wish only minimally to conflate the issues—that there were students in formerly all-white schools during the early years of government-mandated desegregation who were made extremely uncomfortable by the presence of swarthy schoolmates in their locker rooms. You will correctly observe, whether or not you personally think that desegregation by fiat was a good idea, that these policies were promulgated in response to a complex of social, political and economic issues that loomed very large in American public life, whereas the subset of oppressed transgender teens represents by comparison an infinitesimally minor segment of the population.

I am assuming here, as it may be you do not, that the individual on behalf of whom the suit was brought is sincere in the asserted female identification, and not an opportunistic young lecher looking to ogle the coeds.

The hard questions go to the courts. I think that people of good will would have recognized the ambiguities inherent in either outcome to this particular case. Certainly I don't have the answer.

cordially,

EDIT: After a less cursory reading of the source, I now realize that the determination that the transgender student was denied, et cetera, was made at the administrative/bureaucratic level, and does not proceed from a court decision. I daresay, accordingly, that the affronted modesties will go on to seek judicial relief. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.