For almost as long as transgender people have openly existed in public life, our relationship to antidiscrimination law has been fraught. Most states still lack explicit protections for transgender people and the U.S. Congress has tried but failed to amend existing antidiscrimination laws to expressly protect us. Making things more difficult, over the last four decades trans rights and gay rights have repeatedly been pit against each other, erupting at times in contentious struggles to garner protections for gays but excluding trans folks from protection in a misdirected hope that trans-exclusionary amendments would be more palatable to the masses. See generally Rose (2009). Lacking the political power to win express protections outright, our only hope has been to convince the courts that existing laws already protect us. Federal law and most state laws extend protection on the basis of sex and disability—both grounds which should shield transgender people from the most pernicious forms of public and private bias. But, for several decades, state and federal courts uniformly deemed us beyond the reach of these protections simply because we are transgender. This unprincipled juridical exclusion, coupled with voracious and open anti-trans bias in society at large, has relegated transgender Americans to the margins of society. See generally Injustice at Every Turn (2011). Against this backdrop, Gavin’s fight to use the boy’s restroom is but one part of a continued struggle to vindicate trans rights by recasting old laws to protect us. As we guard ourselves for the next trip up to the Supreme Court, we must carefully consider a few things, among them—what interventions we push for, who we choose to carry our banner forward, and how exactly we might hone our legal arguments to overcome both pernicious precedents and entrenched bias inside and outside of the courts. I believe that one critical step our movement must take is retooling how we approach transgender rights in and outside of the courts. For far too long, advocates have tethered transgender rights to gay rights, hoping that incremental progress for gay Americans would help us break down barriers uniquely subjugating trans Americans. Though our communities share important similarities, tensions abound and the reflexive prioritization and centering of gay experiences has proven to be our undoing politically and, I fear, bleeds over into the legal theories long leaned on to propel our movement. To set ourselves up for big wins before the Supreme Court, I believe that we will need to rethink how we conceptualize transgender rights. We must disabuse ourselves of uncritical reliance on the tools and strategies of the gay rights movement, including queer legal theory. This Essay proposes another way forward—centering trans rights by deploying an intersectional frame.