Outsports posted yesterday a story about a middle school athlete in California who has been kicked off the boys' basketball team for reasons related to the athlete's gender identity. The athlete, Junior White, identifies as nonbinary -- that is, having a gender identity that is neither singularly male or female. Junior's assigned sex from birth is male and Junior competes on the boys football and basketball teams. Junior's teammates and the school community were initially supportive of Junior's gender identity, but his Junior' recent decision to use the girls' locker room and restroom -- where Junior feels more comfortable because of his trans* status -- apparently provoked the school principal to insist that Junior's use of the girls' facilities makes him ineligible for boys' sports.
This is an odd position for the school to take, which to me raises questions about whether the principal's objective is for Junior to play on girls' teams, or for Junior to stop using the girls' bathroom. It is odd because usually it is more controversial when transgender girls want to play girls sports than when they want to keep competing consistent with their male birth sex. It is also inconsistent with California law, which "permits" athletes to participate on athletic teams in a manner consistent with their gender identity, "irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records." It permits gender-identity based participation -- it does not require the athlete to give up competing on the teams that correspond to the athlete's gender of record. Put simply, this means if Junior identifies as female, Junior can play girls' sports if Junior wants to. But neither of these statements are true. Junior identifies as nonbinary, and Junior wants to play boys' sports, consistent with the gender in Junior's records.
The principal's decision is even more odd for declaring Junior ineligible for football along with boys' basketball. If a school offers separate boys' and girls' teams in a single sport, a school can prohibit a girl from playing on a boys' team and vice versa, consistent with both Title IX and constitutional principles of equal protection. But in situations where there is not a girls' team in the sport in question, female athletes routinely won the right to try out. Even in contact sports like football (which are exempt from this aspect of Title IX), female plaintiffs have prevailed by challenging their exclusion under the equal protection clause. So, even if Junior did identify as female, that would not be a valid basis for excluding Junior from the football team.
The Outsports article mentioned that the Junior and other students and supporters are protesting the school's decision. My feeling is that if they wanted to add a legal challenge to the mix, they would be on solid ground.
