I am not a lawyer (or even American) but this Idaho ruling, and one earlier case it calls on for support (Parents for Privacy v. Barr ) appears to say that despite the constitution and Title IX, trans identification makes girls rights to female-only spaces completely null and void, even when it comes to "intimate exposure". It's also notable I think that the court made a really big deal over misgendering.
And from what I could find, the Parents for Privacy v. Barr case has largely gone under the radar, but relatively neutral and pro-trans sources characterize it as yet another simple bathroom case, so it's interesting how quickly it came to be used to support the erosion of women's sports.
Excerpts from the Idaho ruling:
"The Proposed Intervenors claim a significant and protected interest in having and maintaining “female-only competitions and a competitive environment shielded from physiologically advantaged male participants to whom they stand to lose.” Dkt. 30-1, at 7; see also Dkt. 52, at 4 n. 1. Plaintiffs characterize this interest as a mere desire to exclude transgender students from single-sex sports, which is not significantly protectable. Dkt. 45, at 10–11. As Plaintiffs note, the Ninth Circuit has held cisgender students do not have a legally protectable interest in excluding transgender students from single-sex spaces. Parents for Privacy v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1210, 1228 (9th Cir. 2020) (rejecting Title IX and constitutional claims of cisgender students based on having to share single sex restrooms and locker facilities with transgender students)."
"Finally, Plaintiffs argue intervention could prejudice the adjudication of their claims because counsel for the Proposed Intervenors have a history of utilizing misgendering tactics that will delay and impair efficient resolution of litigation. For instance, the Motion to Intervene is replete with references to Lindsay using masculine pronouns and refers to other transgender women by their former male names. The Court is concerned by this conduct, as other courts have denounced such misgendering as degrading, mean, and potentially mentally devastating to transgender individuals. T.B., Jr. ex rel. T.B. v. Prince George’s Cty. Bd. of Educ., 897 F.3d 566, 577 (4th Cir. 2018) (describing student’s harassment of transgender female teacher by referring to her with male gender pronouns as “pure meanness.”); Hampton v. Baldwin, 2018 WL 5830730, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2018) (referencing expert testimony that “misgendering transgender people can be degrading, humiliating, invalidating, and mentally devastating.”)"
From: www.aclu.org/legal-document/hecox-v-little-decision-granting-preliminary-injunction?redirect=legal-document/hecox-v-little-motion-granting-preliminary-injunction
Excerpt from the Parents for Privacy v. Barr case which was referenced in the Idaho ruling:
"We agree with the district court and hold that there is no Fourteenth Amendment fundamental privacy right to avoid all risk of intimate exposure to or by a transgender person who was assigned the opposite biological sex at birth. We also hold that a policy that treats all students equally does not discriminate based on sex in violation of Title IX, and that the normal use of privacy facilities does not constitute actionable sexual harassment under Title IX just because a person is transgender. We hold further that the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a fundamental parental right to determine the bathroom policies of the public schools to which parents may send their children, either independent of the parental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. Finally, we hold that the school district’s policy is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose, and does not infringe Plaintiffs’ First Amendment free exercise rights because it does not target religious conduct."
law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-35708/18-35708-2020-02-12.html