Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Virginia Girl Who Sued School District to Use Men’s Restroom

Toilet1RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of a Virginia girl who identifies as a boy who sued her school district out of her desire to use the men’s restroom at her high school.

As previously reported, Gavin Grimm, now 17, told reporters in December 2014 that she began using the men’s restroom after obtaining permission from the school principal when she expressed disapproval over being forced to use the nurse restroom.

“I’m not a girl. I’m not using the girl’s restroom,” Grimm stated. “So I said, ‘Hey, where can I use the restroom?’ … And so they said, ‘Use the nurse’s room,’ and at the time I was fine with that, because I was still afraid—I didn’t know how my peers would react. So, I didn’t want to push the envelope any further than I had to all at once.”

But she said that the option soon became a problem.

“The nurse’s office is at least a three minute walk from the class I have closest to it. It took a substantial amount of time out of my class time, and it was embarrassing,” Grimm said. “When you’re gone for 15 minutes at a time to use the bathroom, what are high schoolers gonna think? It’s humiliating and it’s alienating.”

So, the student asked the principal about the matter, who suggested that Grimm go ahead and use the men’s restroom since she identifies as a boy. But some of the parents of the male students soon learned about the allowance, and the issue turned up before the school district.

The district soon voted to approve a policy requiring students to utilize the restroom that correlates with their biological gender, or to use a private bathroom.

  • Connect with Christian News

But in response, Grimm sued the Gloucester County School District with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in an effort to overturn the policy.

“By excluding Gavin—a transgender boy—from the boys restrooms because the school board does not deem him to be ‘biologically’ male, the school board, under color of state law, has treated and continues to treat Gavin differently from similarly situated students based on his gender,” the suit asserted.

Last September, District Court Judge Robert Doumar, appointed to the bench by then-President Ronald Reagan, ruled against Grimm, disagreeing with the ACLU that the district had violated Title IX with its restroom policy.

“Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and not on the basis of other concepts such as gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation,” Doumar wrote.

The ACLU appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled 2-1 in favor of Grimm this week by pointing to the Obama administration’s recent interpretations of the federal statute.

“At the heart of this appeal is whether Title IX requires schools to provide transgender students access to restrooms congruent with their gender identity,” the three-judge panel wrote. “We conclude that the department’s interpretation of its own regulation . . . as it relates to restroom access by transgender individuals, is . . . to be accorded controlling weight in this case.”

The court asked Doumar to rehear Grimm’s complaint that the district policy violated Title IX in light of how the U.S. Department of Education views the federal statute. As previously reported, the Department recently forced a school district in the Chicago area to accommodate a male student who desired to use the girls’ locker room because of his gender identity.

The U.S. Department of Justice had filed a statement of interest in Grimm’s case. It applauded the move.

“We are pleased with the Fourth Circuit’s decision, which agreed with the position that the United States advocated in its brief,” the department wrote in a statement.

But others expressed concern.

“Protecting students’ privacy while using the restroom, showers, or locker rooms and not forcing them to share intimate settings with members of the opposite sex is not only legal, it’s an important duty of officials who watch over our children,” wrote the religious liberties organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

“Title IX, the federal law that this lawsuit cites in its attempt to overturn the school district’s policy, does just the opposite of what the ACLU is arguing: Title IX specifically authorizes schools to have separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls,” it continued. “The policy is good because it accommodates students who aren’t comfortable using facilities designated for their biological sex without neglecting the established right of children to bodily privacy and safety.”

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Ken Faivor

    The real test……..Can she use a urinal.

    • gizmo23

      Why is that a requirement ?

      • Slidellman4life

        Because if she can’t she doesn’t belong there would be my guess.

        • rubellapox2

          They have stalls in men’s rooms, what’s the problem?

          • Slidellman4life

            That was not what was being asked. Do you have anything to say on topic?

          • rubellapox2

            “….Can she use a urinal?” “Why is that a requirement?”They have stalls in the men’s restroom… How is that off topic ‘tard?

          • Slidellman4life

            Because it was a specific question asked for a specific reason. ‘Tard.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      By that logic, it’s okay for anyone, transgender or otherwise, to use a women’s bathroom. Because, hey, nothing in there that someone who’s biologically male can’t use, right?

  • Chrissy Vee


  • The Last Trump

    Bizzaro America.
    Financially and morally bankrupt. Hedonistic and self absorbed. Indulgers in sexual anarchy and despisers of traditional family. And, incredibly, harvester of unborn children for parts!
    On top of internally facing the bleakest of futures thanks to her own impending financial collapse, externally her enemies continue to grow stronger, bolder, and more numerous in number by the hour, instinctively gathering around the smell of blood in the water.
    But this, THIS, is one of the biggest issues of our time!?
    Sort of reminds you of Nero fiddling while Rome burned doesn’t it?

    • gizmo23

      It wasn’t an issue until hateful Christians decided to hurt gay people

      • Slidellman4life

        Troll. Flagged.

        • gizmo23

          Big deal

      • Patrick Van Der Ven

        Dear Gizmo,
        You are correct: homosexuals were given full admission into the early church until the 4th century AD. It was not until 306 AD and the council of Elvira that homosexual were denied communion in the Western Roman Empire and 314 at Council of Ancyra in the Eastern Roman Empire. By 346 CE once Rome was Christianised then homosexual marriages were annulled and banned.

        Jesus himself in Matthew 19:12 admits humans are born gay. This position holds more weight if we use the language of Aramaic which Christ would have been speaking where the word is myhemne, which means trusted ones, but was translated to eunuch. Eunuch does not mean a man who been castrated and had much wider meaning in Ancient World.
        Eunuch (/ˈjuːnək/; Ancient Greek: εὐνοῦχος) is a man who may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. In some ancient texts, “eunuch” may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate. So again it does not mean the inability to function and again these were the homosexuals of the biblical world. In Latin, the words eunuchus, spado, and castratus were used to denote eunuchs.[1]
        For instance, Lucian suggests two methods to determine whether someone is a eunuch: physical inspection of the body, or scrutiny of his ability to perform sexually with females (Lucian, Eunuchus 12). Note that means these people were homosexual as there was nothing wrong with their anatomy other than their attraction.
        This is extremely interesting because Jesus says in Matthew.

        Matthew 19:12New American Standard Bible (NASB)

        12 For
        there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and
        there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Note even Jesus concedes three types of eunuch. The ones who come from the womb homosexuals; those who had been castrated i.e captured soldiers and lastly those who chose celibacy.

        The earliest surviving etymology of the word is from late antiquity. The 5th century (AD) Etymologicon by Orion of Thebes offers two alternative origins for the word eunuch: first, to tēn eunēn ekhein, “guarding the bed”, a derivation inferred from eunuchs’ established role at the time as “bedchamber attendants” in the imperial palace, and second, to eu tou nou ekhein, “being good with respect to the mind”, which Orion explains based on their “being deprived of male-female intercourse (esterēmenou tou misgesthai), the things that the ancients used to call irrational (anoēta, literally: ‘mindless’)”.[

        In translations of the Bible into modern European languages, such as the Luther Bible or the King James Bible, the word eunuchus as found in the Latin Vulgate is usually rendered as officer, official or chamberlain, consistent with the idea that the original meaning of eunuch was bed-keeper (Orion’s first option). Modern religious scholars have been disinclined to assume that the courts of Israel and Judah included castrated men,[15] even though the original translation of the Bible into Greek used the word eunoukhos.

        Surveying the Roman legal provisions about eunuchs, we see that eunuchs could make wills (Code of Justinian 6.22.5, and were required to perform guardianship duties (Code of Justinian 5.62.1). Whole eunuchs who were freemen, unlike mutilated eunuchs, were eligible for marriage and for adopting children (D, 28.2.6). In fact, anatomically whole eunuchs had all the rights and duties of ordinary men.

        But of course, eunuchs were not just ordinary men. Although they had no legally relevant bodily defects, they were nonetheless characterized in the popular mind by a certain physical incapacity. The popular view of eunuchs as defective explains their appearance in the law on defects in slaves, and it is also conveyed by the wording of other Roman laws, if not by their effects.

        In First Commentary, Section 196, Gaius stated that a eunuch did not attain puberty like a male. On the other hand, in providing (D that a eunuch might obtain an exclusive heir by arrogation, Modestinus flatly affirmed: “he does not have a bodily defect as an impediment” [nec ei corporale vitium impedimento est].

        So, what defined the natural eunuch, if he was anatomically intact?

        For that, we must consider ancient notions of how reproduction occurred. Ancient doctors had no knowledge of sperm cells and egg cells. The cause of conception was thought to be a dynamic heat found in males, which can transform already existing, nongenerative fluids into a formed, generative state, much like egg whites gel and whiten in soft-boiled eggs. When implanted in the womb, this seed would be nourished and grow into a baby. According to a long-standing tradition dating at least from Aristotle, women’s fluids were non-generative because, it was thought, their bodies were too cold and moist to give form to semen (Generation of Animals 1.20, 4.1). This was why women could not produce children without males. To produce a child, semen first had to be poached, as it were, by the heat of the male’s orgasm.

        Eunuchs were considered like women, that is, cold; therefore their fluid would normally be watery and sterile too (Generation of Animals 2.7). Applying Aristotle’s reasoning that the concoction of semen by heat makes it generative, I surmise that eunuchs were deemed unable to procreate insofar as they did not feel the heat of passion during procreative acts with women. It is only if a eunuch can penetrate and reach passionate orgasm with a woman, not an easy thing for him to accomplish, that he can also implant concocted semen into her and procreate like a male — but then he would also cease to be considered a eunuch, having in this way proven his manhood

        • Slidellman4life

          Blasphemy. Flagged.

          And why does this guy still have posting privileges?

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            How can discussion of linguistics be blasphemy?

          • Slidellman4life

            Enough. You are a homosexual, so it goes without saying you will do or say anything to defend your sin, but trying to use Jesus to do it is blasphemy.

            Eunuchs are men without penises. They are neither the same as, nor in any way similar to, homosexuals.

            Why are the mods allowing this?

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            Dear Slidelman, first I would be very care posting definitions: it shows you do not know what you are talking about. The narrow 21st century meaning of eunuch means to have your testicles removed. Secondly, I showed the Greek meaning at the time of what an eunuch . I also showed what it meant in the Greek translation of the time re Matt 19:12. So meaning of eunuchs at Jesus’ time was very different, obviously you had my post removed. Meaning one, those disinclined to have sex with women, those who had been castrated and finally those who have chosen celibacy for the sake of heaven, priests for and monks for example. You see that is the issue with translation is you need to look at the currency of words. For example let us look how words change. Awful for example in its original meaning means to hold in awe. Now in the vernacular of British, Australian and American English means something bad. Friendly question how many languages do you speak?
            If you want I can write to from the Aramaic perspective of the verse, as you would be aware Matthew was written Aramaic, I am happy with a commentary by Eusebius.

          • Slidellman4life

            Shut your mouth. I’m not the one who is going to sign onto your self-serving lies and deceptions.

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            You get very nasty don’t you when you can not answer a point. Why are you afraid of truth?

          • Slidellman4life

            Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            I have very good comprehension. What was the humorous thing I read today was your posts that eunuchs do not have penises. You have never been able to counter anything I have said with actual facts. You know what may be of use for you. With that in mind I will denounce you as a liar and accuser. Child, go and get an education. Also try letting Jesus into your heart. Light and love.

          • Slidellman4life

            If that was a troll, it was lame. If it wasn’t, the more you lie and blaspheme the more you court God’s wrath. Be wise.

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            I am not a troll. I Never have been, never will be. I never committed blasphemy either. I am actually sad for you. You are in my prayers because I have never met someone like you before and there must be some horrid thing must have happened to you. I am ending conversations with for no other reason than you do not have the intellectual capacity to defend an hypothesis other than calling someone a liar. An ad hominem is not an argument.

          • Slidellman4life

            A troll is someone who deliberately posts something with the intent of creating controversy among readers.

            When you say Jesus approves of homosexuality, knowing it is not true and when the motivation is 100% self-serving, that’s blasphemy.

            Not a single one of your prayers will be heard by God because you have no relationship with him whatsoever.

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            You are not worth it as I said: Do not talk to me.

          • Slidellman4life

            Jesus did acknowledge homosexuals are born gay.

            A self-serving lie. Period.

            Jesus also loves me and hears my prayers.

            Jesus may indeed love you, but for you to say He isn’t the living Son of God means you are not one of His, so, no, He’s not listening, and I am willing to bet your above comment will not win you any favors, either.

          • Fabian Kawo

            So that’s exactly what i lure you into saying. Self justifying infidels and Homosexuals can never find any rooms in Gods Kingdom. God forbids. The solution is only when you repent and turn from your God forbidden sexual practices. The Bible is the authority search the truth Not just read it. It’s not a comic book.

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            Fabian? Infidels really? So are you saying you are an avatar for
            Slidellman forlife. I am going to go even further and quote the German,
            French, Swiss and Luxembourgian Council of Catholic Bishops. August 27,
            2015 — On August 25,
            the official website of the German Bishops’ Conference, published an
            interview with the German moral theologian Stephan Goertz concerning his
            new book, Who Am I to Judge? Homosexuality and the Catholic Church.One
            could ask oneself whether a loyal homosexual loving relationship – one
            which understands itself as a partnership within the frame of the belief
            in the God of Israel and of Jesus – could not even have a sacramental
            character. Homosexual partnerships could thereby find an ecclesiastical

            According to the Pew Forum, and many other polls, a
            majority of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics now favour
            legalising same-sex marriage. So when our more conservative Christian
            kin claim that gay marriage is against God and against the Bible, we beg
            to differ. And since Christians are a “people of the Word,” we look to
            the Bible to justify our thinking. That’s essential to Christianity,
            although all too often we get it wrong, at least at first.

            various eras, those who claimed to follow Christ used specific Bible
            passages to argue that the Inquisition was God’s will, the Crusades were
            a good idea, slavery was legitimate, women should not be allowed to own
            property or have the right to vote, disabled people must have sinned to
            deserve their disabilities and God hated Jews.

            Although each of
            these beliefs was based on the literal words of a particular Bible
            passage, all of them were in opposition to the message and life of Jesus
            and the prophets. So when Christians eventually rejected these
            positions, they returned to the Scriptures, in their original form, to
            reconsider the text.

            This time around, it’s the same process. Most
            New Testament Greek scholars now point out that there are only three
            passages that deal with homosexuality in the New Testament — Romans
            1:23-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 — and those passages
            don’t deal with homosexuality as we define it today but rather with
            temple prostitution and other abuses. Because of dated (and often loved)
            translations, many versions of the Bible imply otherwise.

            never addressed the subject of homosexuality, other than what can be
            inferred from his example of loving and accepting everyone, especially
            the oppressed and those whom the religious establishment considered

            Some Christians will disagree, pointing out that Jesus
            said marriage was between a man and a woman. What they are referring to
            is Mark 10:2-12, where Jesus protested the practise of men getting rid
            of inconvenient wives by simply handing them a certificate of divorce.

            this passage Jesus is objecting to a system that excessively penalised
            women, often causing financial devastation, loss of children and other
            unjust consequences..

            Jesus never spoke against homosexuality, but
            he did speak very clearly against divorce. Yet the majority of churches
            today — including those who view same-sex marriage as a sin — not only
            accept divorced members but also allow them to be church leaders. Why?
            Because marriage and divorce were different institutions in the time of
            Christ, and there are valid reasons for contemporary cultures to allow
            divorce in certain cases.

            Literalism leads to using Bible passages
            as weapons. Instead of taking the Bible literally we should take it
            seriously, with deep faithfulness to the Old and New Testaments’ core
            values of compassion, justice and peace.

            An ever-growing number of
            Christian clergy and lay people now believe that rejecting gay civil
            rights because of a literal adherence to certain verses directly
            contradicts these themes. They point out how these views are hurting all
            of the church, especially its most vulnerable members: young gay people
            who are convinced that their very essence is sinful.

            Furthermore, they can no longer support unjust laws that penalise committed same-sex couples and their families.

            more and more church members thoughtfully and prayerfully confront the
            evidence, it will only be a matter of time before the majority of
            Christians of all stripes become allies rather than antagonists for
            justice and equal rights for gay people. Then we will come out on the
            right side of history once again.

            These are the many entire
            denominations consisting of hundreds of thousands of churches, and tens
            of millions of Christians, who now know that the Koine Greek and Hebrew
            words relating to this subject have been purposefully mistranlated since
            the 4th Century until recently:

            North America

            • Episcopal Church (United States)
            • Evangelical Anglican Church In America
            • Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
            • Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

            • Affirming Pentecostal Church International
            • Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
            • Anthem Phoenix & Family of Churches
            • Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
            • Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
            • Community of Christ
            • Ecclesia Gnostica
            • Ecumenical Catholic Church
            • Ecumenical Catholic Communion
            • The Evangelical Network
            • Friends General Conference
            • Friends of Jesus Fellowship
            • Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
            • Inclusive Orthodox Church
            • Metropolitan Community Church
            • Old Catholic Church
            • Presbyterian Church (USA)
            • Progressive Christian Alliance
            • Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
            • Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) — a Latter Day Saint denomination
            • United Church of Christ
            • United Church of Canada
            • Unity Church


            • German Lutheran, reformed and united churches in Evangelical Church in Germany
            • German, Swiss, Austrian and Dutch Old Catholic Church
            • Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Ecumenical Catholic Communion
            • Swiss reformed churches in Swiss Reformed Church
            • Protestant Church in the Netherlands
            • Church of Denmark
            • Church of Norway
            • Church of Sweden
            • Church of Iceland
            • United Protestant Church in Belgium
            • Portugal – Affirming Pentecostal Church International
            • British Quakers
            • Wales – Affirming Pentecostal Church International
            • Albania – Affirming Pentecostal Church International
            • Evangelical Lutheran Church in Italy (CELI)
            • Poland – Christian United Church in Poland
            • United Kingdom – United Ecumenical Catholic Church

            Central and South America

            • Brazil – Affirming Pentecostal Church International
            • Colombia – Affirming Pentecostal Church International


            • Baptist Affirming
            • Uniting Church in Australia
            • Anglican
            • Metropolitan Community Churches
            • Ecumenical Catholic Communion
            • Pentecostal Reformed

            .The Dutch reformed church.

          • Ronald Carter

            If you feel the need to silence your opposition, you lose your argument.

        • Fabian Kawo

          Oh This is history man craving for unusual sex behavior created however In the BEGINNING GOD CREATED Male and Female to reproduce. Remember Noah and Sodom/ Gomorrah.Cursed are the people who are involved in such inhuman sexual behavior.

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            I can easily answer this in connexion with Sodom and Gomorrah. I would suggest you look up youtube and even Pat Robertson agrees Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality.
            See Ezekiel 16:49.

      • Fabian Kawo


        • gizmo23

          So your solution would be ?

          • Fabian Kawo

            Honestly, No Solution. However normal human being created in the image of the creator should honor God by doing what he purposed it to be in the beginning.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      The two great “causes” of post-Christian America: choosing which babies to kill and which restroom to go into.

    • Ronald Carter

      So how does a bathroom issue warrant a rant about hedonism, anarchy, traditional family, abortion and financial collapse? Do I gather from your username that you believe the end is nigh? And you believe this because of the transgendered trying to find a bathroom they feel comfortable in? I am just trying to connect the dots here, help a brother out. Because the phrase “supreme overreaction” comes to mind.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      If it’s not that big of an issue, why are you here commenting about it? If I remember right, I’ve seen you commenting on other stories about transgender people and/or what bathroom they’re trying to use. (There’s certainly enough of them to comment on, on sites like this. Seems like they consider it important enough of an issue. Direct your complaints to Christian News Network and their ilk.) For that matter, if it’s not really that big of an issue, why don’t we just let ’em use what bathroom they want to, and all go on with our lives? I guess, believe it or not, I kind of agree with you, in a way. There’s more important things to worry about than if someone has the genitalia and/or chromosomes that correspond to the bathroom they’re using. (though I’m guessing you and I wouldn’t completely agree on what those things are, or who’s to blame for them….lol)

  • sammy13

    Does she use the URINAL as all MALES do?

    • bowie1

      Not all males use the urinals and may use the toilets in the stalls, but this girl certainly has problems!

  • John_33

    This is terrible. People are going to get attacked in the washrooms because of court rulings like this.

  • Slidellman4life

    Notice how she was insistent on using the boys’ restroom? This is not an accident, nor is it about feelings.This was a deliberate move to force herself onto the male students.

    The school district should have immediately expelled her for this obvious political stunt.

  • Patrick Van Der Ven

    The court has ruled, and has invalidated these discriminatory laws against transgender people. It will be a waste of time and effort to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. It would be upheld and all that the states are doing is wasting taxpayer dollars. Obviously this has repercussion to blatantly discriminatory laws of NC which are plainly illegal.. The NC governor has said he would abide by the decision of the court, which politically is politically serendipitous for NC as they can appeal to their voter base and say “Hay I agree with you, but I must abide by the law”. This would end the financial and cultural boycott of NC.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    A person should stay with the birth gender. It is God’s way. Transgender is a rebellion against the Creator God, and abortion is a murder crime.