of the case law as well as the issues of transition with respect to transgender the students typically start with things right changing their name from family to remaster and they are they there is a right to privacy because that the existence of these alternative the syllabi would only be implicated if there was a compromise of the privacy it for this purpose for the purposes of th but upon which that is built then they go one step further they want to define who can be in that were and their definitions of sex have changed over time  because they have realized i believe that some of their definitions of sets don't stand up to logical scrutiny if you wrote that paragraphs twenty eight and twenty knowing of their amended complain that the judge found those facts based on that allow transgender students to use the facilities that match their gender identity a practice that has been in place for nearly two years in which a court would not abuse its discretion and denying that unprecedented request at the preliminary injunction stage as the district the other cases where the plaintiff is transgender students seeking access among your complaints when schools or work institution say well you can use the private facility is your student as we're making the treating me differently why if students just precisely the way the facilities were intended to be used i mean that is a very different thing from the fourth amendment context and i think the supreme court has recognized that in the case of sam it was reading much about the strip search of a young girl and the court talked about you know the ability case by case basis and say ok we're going to work with the students and the guidance counselor to figure out you know what is the right thing choice for the student and which the saudis are most appropriate for that student to use and that will i think not  up until today the students have not been objecting in fact to seeing any particular anatomical parts or or to nudity in fact what their objection is to the very presence of transgender people and we see that one of the plaintiffs mary smith complaint is that she entered the girls restroom and song girl who is transgender washing her hands saying i think that example illustrates so powerfully why this case has nothing to do with privacy or new community or anyone's intimate body parts has to do with an objection to suggest their very presence is unacceptable whatever plaintiffs subjective experiences in iraq are only restrooms maybe the district court down there is nothing objective really offensive about going about daily life being transgender and of course we talk about the severe pervasive standard earlier but not the other element which is that not only simply using the facilities they were meant to be used regardless of the sex of the people involved we've not talked about the tort claim at all and i would just briefly add that claim fails because they have no reasonable expectation of being secluded from others but the same reason that seclusion is not about any one sex or gender but rather the expectation of being alone and there's no more of a risk to other students probably threats than the presence of an overly curious student the same biological sex i difficulty with are here argument is you have a transgender student who is interested in does nothing else than