There's an argument to be made that laws that discriminate against transgender people should receive the highest scrutiny. There's also an argument to be made that bathroom bans are so irrational that they shouldn't survive even the lowest level of scrutiny, which applies where a suspect class isn't targeted. But that may not matter. Bathroom bans are passed by reactionaries who don't want transgender boys in the boys' room or the girls room because their demonstrated intent is to tell transgender kids they are "freaks" who don't deserve to be anywhere. They're the kind of animus-based attacks that so flagrantly offend our constitutional values that the Supreme Court – and swing vote Justice Kennedy in particular – has struck them down without being too precious about tiers of scrutiny. Under Trump, the DOE has stopped telling local governments they can't bully transgender children – but that doesn't mean they can.
Bacchi (1999) reminds us that we always need to tease out and comment on the presuppositions and assumptions embedded in competing interpretations of an issue. She argues that any description of a problem is simultaneously an interpretation that involves judgment and choices. Regarding American social work, it is interesting to note how scholars have represented and interpreted its developmental process differently. While Abbott (1988) provides his ‘genderless’ analysis, sociologists Dresselt (1992) and Deegan (1990) interpret the process of professionalization of social work from a gendered perspective. Through their feminist gaze they observe how gender is structurally embedded in professional work from the very outset. All three agree that social work was constituted as a field of education in the second half of the 19 th century in the US and in most European countries, but they depict these processes in different ways.