The literal and objective truth is that human beings are sexually dimorphic with both both acute and statistically obvious differences between the two sexes, which derive—baring a medical abnormality—from the chromosome match up of XX or XY, that is separate and distinct from any and all “gender identities”. Federal judge Amanda Brailsford, however, has this completely backwards when she(?) declared that biological sex was indeterminable while “gender identity” was the only Constitutionally permissible way of segregating people.
“Under Brailsford’s potty logic, any law that designates restrooms—or showers or locker rooms—by sex (and that imposes a penalty for violation) is unconstitutionally vague. And in practice no such law could be enforced against anyone, transgender or not.”
“Brailsford devotes most of her merits discussion to two of the exceptions that the law sets forth: one when a “single-user facility [designated for the opposite sex] is the only facility reasonably available at the time of the person’s use of the facility,” and the other when a ‘person is in dire need of urinating or defecating and such facility is the only facility reasonably available at the time of the person’s use.’ (See slip op. at 11-15.) She somehow finds that those exceptions are unconstitutionally vague because they “leave[] critical enforcement decisions to the unguided discretion of individual officers.” Why this alleged vagueness in the exceptions is a reason to enjoin the law generally (rather than to invalidate the two exceptions or construe them expansively) is puzzling.
“Brailsford then inserts a single paragraph (top of p. 16) in which she asserts that the law’s general bar ‘invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement’ because it depends on ‘a law enforcement officer’s ability to determine an individual’s “biological sex.”’ On that ground, she rules that plaintiffs have sufficiently established that the law is unconstitutionally vague.”
Just because someone can “pass” as a “trap” or “reverse-trap” doesn’t mean that it’s Unconstitutional for them to have to use the sex-segregated restroom designed for their biological sex. But this goes beyond mere “traps” and declares that harry obvious dudes can just use the Ladies restroom because of their “gender identity”, despite that not being obvious until potential police questioning happens.
The original law can be read here, or below:
Idaho HB 0752 (2026) by ThePoliticalHat
The court ruling can be read here, or below:
