How would you feel if something as simple as your ability to use a restroom of your choice was stripped by our government? While this is something the vast majority of us haven’t experienced, we should feel for members of the transgender community who will. A recent and significant law called the Texas Women’s Privacy Act (TWPA) uses the guise of preventing cisgender men from women’s private spaces, to cover its transphobic motivations.
The Texas House of Representatives and Senate passed this act, known as the Texas Senate Bill 8. Governor Greg Abbott signed it on Sept. 22. It will go into effect on Dec. 4. TWPA restricts the restrooms, locker rooms and private spaces of governmentally-owned buildings, public schools, universities and domestic violence shelters to an individual’s biological sex. The law asserts that any public facility that violates this act can face an initial fine of up to $125,000 for violations.
Supporters of this bill argue that it protects women and children in private spaces and actively prevents biological males with malicious intent from entering them. The bill’s house sponsor, Texas Rep. Angelia Orr, claims that “the preference of someone’s sexual appearance does not override the safety and privacy of a biological female.” I wholeheartedly agree with maintaining the privacy of women and children in private spaces. However, this bill is attempting to solve a nonexistent problem.
I want to assert that while instances of cisgender men entering women’s public spaces do occur — they are extremely rare. Although I do acknowledge one-off instances, there is little to no evidence to label cisgender men entering women’s private spaces in public as a consistent problem. Most crimes of sexual assault and abuse occur in private residences, by someone the victim knew. Even instances of privacy breaches and recordings are extremely inconsistent: The Texas Department of Public Safety shows that annual arrests for “Invasive Visual Recordings” and “Invasive Visual Recordings — Bath/Dress RM” are in the low hundreds per year.
“But Gautam, it’s not just about cisgendered men, how do we know trans women won’t do something ugly when using a women’s bathroom? They can easily use the men’s bathroom and continue about their day.”
People who are proponents of the TWPA use this statement as a valid argument. However, research has found no increase in privacy or assault crimes when non-discriminatory laws have been enacted; there is also no evidence to show that trans women have used their status to commit these crimes. Empirical data actually shows the opposite: people in the trans community are much more likely to be victims of assault and harassment.
So when Orr asserts that sexual preference does not override safety or privacy, she’s right — there is no evidence provided that non-discriminatory laws override a biological woman’s safety. The data shows that there will be no significant improvement in safety and reduction in crime from this bill. Therefore, people like Orr, who implore the cruciality of this act, are only further isolating and invalidating the trans community.
The data reinforces my belief that this bill’s title “TWPA” is a Trojan horse for its true intentions — to demonize and suppress one of the most marginalized communities in history. I profess that the proponents of this bill care much more about subtly suppressing the trans community than they do about solving some “systemic” niche problem of women’s privacy in governmental spaces.
Even if proponents did care about eliminating all crime that occurs in private areas, the TWPA is an inefficient way of doing that. This bill fines institutions, but does not directly hold individuals accountable for their intentions. It also does not distinguish intentions from accidents. Most importantly, it punishes institutions after the event has occurred. And while it might incentivize these governmental institutions to take preventative measures, it does not require them to do so.
Finally, I’m firmly convinced that the lawmakers of this bill do not understand the psychology of criminals: If a person wanted to walk into the opposite gender’s bathroom and do something abhorrent, they are going to do it regardless of whether some clause is in place telling them not to. This is not an excuse to get rid of all safety laws, but currently, the TWPA’s pledge to fine institutions is not disincentivizing criminals — plain and simple.
A better alternative to maintaining women’s privacy instead of restricting the actions of a specific group of people, would be to add floor-to-ceiling stalls and single-occupancy restrooms. For domestic violence-shelters, light screening and background checks are options, along with staff monitoring and separate rooms.
When faced with creating policy, legislators need to ask themselves, why does one person’s safety have to come at the cost of another person’s comfort?
