The Majority rejected Niemeyer's assertions, concluding that "the record is devoid of any evidence tending to show that plaintiff's use of the boys' restroom creates a safety issue." Further, the Majority rejected Niemeyer's "suggestion that . . . the enforcement of separate restroom facilities be impossible because it 'would require schools to assume gender identity based on appearances, social expectations, or explicit declarations of identity.' Accepting a position would equally require the school to assume 'biological sex' based on 'appearances, social expectations, or explicit declarations of sex.' Certainly, no one is suggesting mandatory verification of the 'correct' genitalia before admittance to a restroom. The Department Justices’s vision of sex-segregated restrooms which takes account of gender identity presents no greater 'impossibility of enforcement' problem than does the [dissent's] 'biological gender' vision of sex-segregated restrooms."