This thread seems to have moved from the real question of the OP.
It seems to me that the first thing to ask is whether separate bathrooms should be allowed. Is there a compelling reason for the state to segregate bathrooms? If not, the entire case is really just a symptom of the bigger problem and we need to get rid of segregated bathrooms.
If, however, there is such a reason, we need to see how it applies to this particular case. If societal ideas of modesty and decency are the reason, does having a boy who identifies as a girl violate those ideals? I would imagine so; it seems that separate bathrooms are in place to avoid exposure of one gender to the naked bodies of the other gender. So, as this child still has (at least as far as the article in the OP) male genitals, keeping the child from using the female bathrooms makes sense.
If there is a different reason for segregated bathrooms, that reason needs to be clearly stated and it needs to be seen if it applies to this case.
I think there is a large disconnect going on here. If it is discriminatory to prevent a child who identifies as the opposite gender to their physical makeup to use the opposite gender bathroom, why isn't it discriminatory to prevent anyone from using bathrooms of the opposite gender? How is preventing me from using the women's bathroom not gender discrimination? What is the compelling reason that prevents me from doing so, but doesn't affect me if I identify myself as a female (but still have the same physical characteristics I do now)?
Based on the little information provided, these parents sound like fools. Children are provided with boundaries and discipline regarding any number of things, I don't see why pointing out the facts of their physical gender needs be any different. Still, it is their child, not mine. However, as they are asking to affect the lives of all the children and adults around them in the school, this moves beyond simple individual rights IMO.
Because with regard to pubic restrooms, neither men nor women constitute a ‘minority’ subject to discriminatory measures, and neither men nor women constitute a class of persons adversely effected by the state regarding this policy.
ThatÂ’s clearly not the case with transgender persons, who indeed constitute a minority and an adversely effected class of persons.
The issue isnÂ’t restrooms made separate by gender, rather, the issue concerns the individual right to self-determination in the context of privacy, where the state may not discriminate based upon how an individual elects to live his life, where there are boundaries of personal liberty the state may not cross:
“It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter…These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)