?

The amicus brief submitted by the multistate coalition supports Florida?s motion and the State?s law, as well as the long-standing biological definition of sex. The coalition argues that the plaintiff?s desire to expand the definition of ?woman? to include biological males is unreasonable and illegal. For the court to accept a definition of sex based on so-called ?gender identity? rather than biological sex would be a radical departure from social norms that would compromise the safety of all students. It would also create profound legal issues that could lead to increased discrimination and the potential unraveling of all protections for girls in schools, such as separate bathrooms and locker rooms for females.??

?

The brief states: ?Moreover, compelling States to define sex according to gender identity would jeopardize States? ability to enforce coherent sex-conscious policies. It may even force them to resort to sex stereotyping as they search to define ?boy? and ?girl? beyond biology. The Constitution compels none of this. This Court should say so, and help establish a coherent legal framework for the increasingly popular sort of claims [plaintiff] D.N. brings here.??