The Missouri Supreme Court is hearing an important case involving a trans student who participated as a boy on the football and track teams. The school district declined to allow him to use the boys’ bathrooms and locker rooms. Such cases at the state level, especially in very conservative states, may become extremely important for the future. If the federal bench is stacked with right-wing ideologues, we will need to turn to the state courts. Even if the plaintiff loses this case, it will create an evolving conversation about these issues in legal circles that will become important should the issue be revisited in later years in the light of the reality of a growing population of trans youth everywhere. Interestingly, the School District is making a very anti-conservative argument. It argues that the intent of legislators is more important than the meaning of the text. "In documents filed for the Supreme Court, the school district...cautions that judges should reflect legislative intent...." Conservative lawyers and jurists espouse "textualism." For them, the meaning of the text, rather than the intent of one or more legislators, is controlling. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, "sex" discrimination includes discrimination based on gendered norms, not just discrimination based on anatomy.
