Gavin was born female but now considers himself male. The history is discussed below.

What is your opinion? Should Gavin use the girls' bathroom? The boys? Does it matter? If so, why? If not, why not?

Would it concern you if Gavin was using the same bathroom as you? Should all bathrooms be unisex?

Keep in mind that while many students express concern for their children being harmed in the restroom by a transgendered person, the reported incidents suggest it is the transgendered person who is physically assaulted.

WASHINGTON The preme Court :2- on Friday entered the national debate over transgender rights, announcing that it would decide whether a transgender boy may use the boys' bathroom in a Virginia high school. The court is acting just a year after it established a constitutional right to same~sex marriagerz- , as state laws and federal actions on transgender rights have prompted a welter of lawsuits. ln taking the case, the court signaled that it may move more quickly in the area of transgender rights than it has in expanding gay rights. The public debate has been ignited, in part, by a North Carolina law L? that requires transgender people to use bathrooms in government buildings that correspond with the gender listed on their birth certicates, a statute that has drawn protests, boycotts and lawsuits. The case revolves around how the Obama administration is entitled to interpret a federal regulation under a 1972 law that bans discrimination \"on the basis of sex" in schools that receive federal money. The legal question is whether it can also ban discrimination based on gender identity. The Department of Education said last year that schools \"generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity." In May, the department went further, saying that schools could lose federal money if they discriminate against transgender students. That left school districts grappling with how to treat transgender students. In August, a federal judge in Texas blocked 2- Obama administration guidelines 2' on restroom access for such students. The case the Supreme Court agreed to hear concerns Gavin Grimm, who was designated female at birth but identies as male. He attends Gloucester High School in southeastern Virginia. For a time, school administrators allowed Mr. Grimm, 17, to use the boys' bathroom, but the local school board later adopted a policy that required students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms for their \"corresponding biological genders." The board added that "students with gender identity issues\" would be allowed to use private bathrooms. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Mr. Grimm, told the justices :2 that \"girls objected to his presence in the girls' restrooms because they perceived him to be male." The group's brief said requiring Mr. Grimm to use a private bathroom had been humiliating and had, quoting him, "turned him into 'a public spectacle' before the entire community, 'like a walking freak show!" Mr. Grimm, the brief said, \"avoids drinking liquids and tries not to urinate during the school day\" and has, as a consequence, "developed painful urinary tract infections and felt distracted and uncomfortable in class." In a statement issued on Friday, Mr. Grimm said: "I never thought that my restroom use would ever turn into any kind of national debate. The only thing I ever asked for was the right to be treated like everyone else." He continued: "While I'm disappointed that I will have to spend my nal school year being singled out and treated differently from every other guy, I will do everything I can to make sure that other transgender students don't have to go through the same experience." Speaking of the Supreme Court's decision, Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said: "This is one of the most important days in the history of the transgender movement. The outcome of this case is likely to shape the future of that movement in ways that will resonate for a very long time." Gary McCaleb, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, which led a brief supporting the school board in Virginia, said, "Schools have a duty to protect the privacy and safety of all students." Top of Form Bottom of Form \"In light of the right to bodily privacy, federal law should not be twisted to require that a male be given access to the girls' facilities, or a female to the boys' facilities,\" he said. After Mr. Grimm challenged the school board's bathroom policy in court last year, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled the policy unlawful rZ' . A trial judge then ordered school ofcials to let Mr. Grimm use the boys' bathroom. 1 A 1975 regulation adopted under the 1972 law, Title IX, allowed schools to provide "separate toilet, locker rooms and shower facilities on the basis of sex.' The Fourth Circuit said that it was ambiguous and that the Education Department's interpretation of it was entitled to \"controlling weight." A 4-to-4 tie in the Virginia case Gloucester County School Board v. 6.6., No. 16-273 would leave that decision in place but set no national precedent. In agreeing to hear the case, the justices set aside their recent caution in adding cases to their docket while the court is reduced to eight members. The justices may be hoping they will have a new member to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in February, in time for the argument in the case early next yeah The court also agreed to decide whether states may bar registered sex offenders from using Facebook and other social media. That case, Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194, concerns a North Carolina law that makes it a crime for registered sex offenders to use Facebook, Twitter and many other sites that allow the exchange of information and do not limit their membership to adults. The law was challenged by Lester Packingham, a registered sex offender who was convicted of violating it after posting an account of having a trafc ticket dismissed. "God is good,\" he wrote on Facebook. Mr. Packingham, who had pleaded guilty in 2002 to taking indecent liberties with a minor when he was a 21year-old student, said the law violated the First Amendment. A North Carolina appeals court agreed r2, saying the law \"arbitrarily burdens all registered sex offenders by preventing a wide range of communication and expressive activity unrelated to achieving its purported goal" of protecting minors. Course Chat In a 4-to-2 2 ruling , the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision, saying that Mr. Packingham's Facebook post was not entitled to heightened First Amendment protection because it was conduct rather than speech. In urging the United States Supreme Court to review his case, Mr. Packingham argued that the "startling assertion" that his post amounted to conduct and not speech was at odds with "precedent and common sense."