Exactly. Gender-segregated restrooms are held to a lower level of scrutiny than race-segregated restrooms which is why the former is allowed but the latter is

Exactly. Gender-segregated restrooms are held to a lower level of scrutiny than race-segregated restrooms which is why the former is allowed but the latter is not. Also the court is so inconsistent on what gets what and whether rational basis means "we can imagine a rational basis" or "we have evidence for a rational basis" and whether a right gets strict scrutiny (free speech) or not... For example, it is very difficult figuring out whether circumcision bans would be held to rational basis or strict scrutiny when it comes to religious liberty (it does with regard to eduction apparently, per Yoder v. Wisconsin, not regarding to drug laws absent the RFRA (see Smith v. Employment Department of Oregon), but it does reach regarding bans on ritual slaughter of animals, (see Lakumu Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah).