Gender-segregated public bathrooms could go the way of the horse and buggy under a California bill introduced last week.
AB 1732, introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), would require an “all gender” label on all single-occupancy toilet facilities in California businesses, government buildings, and public spaces.
“Signs restricting single-use restroom access by gender create problems of convenience, fairness, and safety,” Ting said in a statement announcing the measure. “‘All gender’ signs will end these problems and ensure everyone’s rights are protected.”
Gender-segregated restrooms are shaping up as a fresh battleground over equal rights and access as states and municipalities seek to expand—and in some cases curb—who can use the bathroom.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Cities like Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Austin, Seattle, Santa Fe, and New York City require businesses and city buildings to designate single-user restrooms as all gender, according to California’s Transgender Law Center. Proposed state legislation in New York and Vermont calls for gender-neutral labeling of single-occupancy bathrooms in public buildings, with the Vermont bill limited to newly constructed or renovated state buildings.
But equal access is not a universal goal. A Republican-backed bill in Indiana would make it a crime punishable by up to one year in jail for a man or trans woman to “knowingly or intentionally [enter] a single sex public facility designed to be used by females,” and vice versa. Two Wisconsin Republicans proposed a bill last fall to bar transgender students from using the restrooms of the gender with which they identify. A revised bill would allow gender-neutral school bathrooms in the state.
“The reality is that these bills aren’t about fighting an actual threat to safety or privacy,” representatives of the Washington, D.C.-based National Center for Transgender Equality wrote last week. “They’re about criminalizing trans people of all ages just for living as who they are and denying them to right to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.”
The 2011 report “Injustice at Every Turn” found that 63 percent of transgender people surveyed by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National LGBTQ Task Force (formerly the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) reported being subjected to wide-ranging discrimination, including physical and sexual assault.
Melissa Goodman, director of the LGBTQ, Gender and Reproductive Justice Project at the ACLU of Southern California, told Rewire that the California bill “will especially reduce the harassment and unnecessary stress” experienced by many transgender people who use a gendered restroom.
Stripping bathrooms of gender-segregating labels is commonly seen as one tool to limit violence against transgender people. But the push for inclusiveness has been met in some corners of the country with fearmongering. In ad campaigns in Houston last fall, opponents of a broad anti-discrimination measure stoked discredited concerns among voters that the law would lead to a spike in sexual assault if cisgender men, who identify as transgender, were permitted to enter “women’s” bathrooms. The measure failed.
“All Californians should have the same freedom to participate in public life, go about their day, and use the bathroom when they need it,” Kris Hayashi, the executive director of Transgender Law Center, said in a statement supporting AB 1732.
The groups Equality California, California NOW, and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association support the bill, which is co-authored by Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco); Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton); and Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).
A 2013 California law allows public school students to use facilities such as restrooms that correspond with their gender identity, but doesn’t require a neutral labeling of such facilities.
Republicans came together in Cleveland this week to nominate Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention (RNC), generating days of cringe-inducing falsehoods and misleading statements on crime, the nominee’s positions on gender equality, and LGBTQ people.
Trump’s Acceptance Speech Blasted for Making False Claims on Crime
Trump accepted the Republican nomination in a Thursday night speech at the RNC that drew harsh criticism for many of its misleading and outright false talking points.
Among the most hotly contested of Trump’s claims was the assertion that crime has exploded across the country.
“Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement,” Trump claimed, according to his prepared remarks, which were leaked ahead of his address. “Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s 50 largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60 percent in nearby Baltimore.”
Crime rates overall have been steadily declining for years.
“In 2015, there was an uptick in homicides in 36 of the 50 largest cities compared to the previous years. The rate did, indeed, increase nearly 17 percent, and it was the worst annual change since 1990. The homicide rate was up 54.3 percent in Washington, and 58.5 percent in Baltimore,” explained Washington Post fact checkers Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee. “But in the first months of 2016, homicide trends were about evenly split in the major cities. Out of 63 agencies reporting to the Major Cities Chiefs Association, 32 cities saw a decrease in homicides in first quarter 2016 and 31 saw an increase.”
Ames Grawert, a counsel in the Brennan Center’s Justice Program, said in a statement posted to the organization’s website that 2016 statistics aren’t sufficient in declaring crime rate trends.
“Overall, crime rates remain at historic lows. Fear-inducing soundbites are counterproductive, and distract from nuanced, data-driven, and solution-oriented conversations on how to build a smarter criminal justice system in America,” Grawert said. “It’s true that some cities saw an increase in murder rates last year, and that can’t be ignored, but it’s too early to say if that’s part of a national trend.”
When Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, was confronted with the common Republican falsehoods on crime during a Thursday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, he claimed that the FBI’s statistics were not to be trusted given that the organization recently advised against charges in connection with Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
“According to FBI statistics, crime rates have been going down for decades,” Tapper told Manafort. “How can Republicans make the argument that it’s somehow more dangerous today when the facts don’t back that up?”
“People don’t feel safe in their neighborhoods,” said Manafort, going on to claim that “the FBI is certainly suspect these days after what they did with Hillary Clinton.”
There was at least one notable figure who wholeheartedly embraced Trump’s fearmongering: former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. “Great Trump Speech,” tweeted Duke on Thursday evening. “Couldn’t have said it better!”
Ben Carson Claims Transgender People Are Proof of “How Absurd We Have Become”
Former Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson criticized the existence of transgender people while speaking at the Florida delegation breakfast on Tuesday in Cleveland.
“You know, we look at this whole transgender thing, I’ve got to tell you: For thousands of years, mankind has known what a man is and what a woman is. And now, all of a sudden we don’t know anymore,” said Carson, a retired neurosurgeon. “Now, is that the height of absurdity? Because today you feel like a woman, even though everything about you genetically says that you’re a man or vice versa?”
“Wouldn’t that be the same as if you woke up tomorrow morning after seeing a movie about Afghanistan or reading some books and said, ‘You know what? I’m Afghanistan. Look, I know I don’t look that way. My ancestors came from Sweden, or something, I don’t know. But I really am. And if you say I’m not, you’re a racist,’” Carson said. “This is how absurd we have become.”
When confronted with his comments during an interview with Yahoo News’ Katie Couric, Carson doubled down on his claims.“There are biological markers that tell us whether we are a male or a female,” said Carson. “And just because you wake up one day and you say, ‘I think I’m the other one,’ that doesn’t change it. Just, a leopard can’t change its spots.”
“It’s not as if they woke up one day and decided, ‘I’m going to be a male or I’m going to be a female,’” Couric countered, pointing out that transgender people do not suddenly choose to change their gender identities on a whim.
Carson made several similar comments last year while on the campaign trail.
In December, Carson criticized the suggested that allowing transgender people into the military amounted to using the armed services “as a laboratory for social experimentation.”
Carson once suggested that allowing transgender people to use the restroom that aligned with their gender identity amounted to granting them “extra rights.”
Ivanka Trump Claims Her Father Supports Equal Pay, Access to Child Care
Ivanka Trump, the nominee’s daughter, made a pitch during her speech Thursday night at the RNC for why women voters should support her father.
“There have always been men of all background and ethnicities on my father’s job sites. And long before it was commonplace, you also saw women,” Ivanka Trump said. “At my father’s company, there are more female than male executives. Women are paid equally for the work that we do and when a woman becomes a mother, she is supported, not shut out.”
“As president, my father will change the labor laws that were put into place at a time when women were not a significant portion of the workforce. And he will focus on making quality child care affordable and accessible for all,” she continued before pivoting to address the gender wage gap.
“Policies that allow women with children to thrive should not be novelties; they should be the norm. Politicians talk about wage equality, but my father has made it a practice at his company throughout his entire career.”
However, Trump’s stated positions on the gender wage gap, pregnancy and mothers in the workplace, and child care don’t quite add up to the picture the Trumps tried to paint at the RNC.
In 2004, Trump called pregnancy an “inconvenience” for employers. When a lawyer asked for a break during a deposition in 2011 to pump breast milk, Trump reportedly called her “disgusting.”
According to a June analysis conducted by the Boston Globe, the Trump campaign found that men who worked on Trump’s campaign “made nearly $6,100, or about 35 percent more [than women during the April payroll]. The disparity is slightly greater than the gender pay gap nationally.”
When Trump was questioned about equal pay during a campaign stop last October, he did not outline his support for policies to address the issue. Instead, Trump suggested that, “You’re gonna make the same if you do as good a job.” Though he had previously stated that men and women who do the same job should be paid the same during an August 2015 interview on MSNBC, he also cautioned that determining whether people were doing the same jobs was “tricky.”
Ivanka’s claims were not the only attempt that night by Trump’s inner circle to explain why women voters should turn to the Republican ticket. During an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Manafort said that women would vote for the Republican nominee because they “can’t afford their lives anymore.”
“Many women in this country feel they can’t afford their lives, their husbands can’t afford to be paying for the family bills,” claimed Manafort. “Hillary Clinton is guilty of being part of the establishment that created that problem. They’re going to hear the message. And as they hear the message, that’s how we are going to appeal to them.”
What Else We’re Reading
Vox’s Dara Lind explained how “Trump’s RNC speech turned his white supporters’ fear into a weapon.”
Now that Mike Pence is the Republican nominee for vice president, Indiana Republicans have faced “an intense, chaotic, awkward week of brazen lobbying at the breakfast buffet, in the hallways and on the elevators” at the convention as they grapple with who will run to replace the state’s governor, according to the New York Times.
“This is a party and a power structure that feels threatened with extinction, willing to do anything for survival,” wrote Rebecca Traister on Trump and the RNC for New York Magazine. “They may not love Trump, but he is leading them precisely because he embodies their grotesque dreams of the restoration of white, patriarchal power.”
Though Trump spent much of the primary season denouncing big money in politics, while at the RNC, he courted billionaires in hopes of having them donate to supporting super PACs.
Michael Kranish reported for the Washington Post that of the 2,472 delegates at the RNC, it is estimated that only 18 were Black.
The Gloucester County School Board wants the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law requires schools to let transgender students access facilities such as bathrooms that conform to their gender identity.
A Virginia school board will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to step into the fight over bathroom access for transgender students in the first real legal test of the Obama administration’s agency actions on the issue.
The case involves Gavin Grimm, a Gloucester County student who, in 2015, challenged his school’s policy of separating transgender students from their peers in restrooms and mandating that students use bathrooms consistent with their “biological sex” rather than their gender identity.
Grimm’s attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the restroom policy, which effectively expels transgender students from communal restrooms and requires them to use “alternative … private” restroom facilities, is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and violates Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination at schools that receive federal funding.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
The school board defended its policy, arguing that it was consistent with federal law and that it protected the privacy rights of other students at Grimm’s school.
Grimm’s attorneys had asked a federal court for an injunction blocking the policy. A lower court initially sided with the school board; Grimm’s attorneys appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the lower court and ruled that Grimm’s lawsuit against his school could proceed.
On Tuesday the Fourth Circuit agreed to put its decision on hold while the school board filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to step in. The board is arguing that the Obama administration has gone too far on transgender rights, beginning in 2012, when it issued an initial agency opinion that refusing transgender students access to the bathrooms consistent with their gender identity violated Title IX.
In October 2015 the administration took that opinion one step further and filed a friend of the court brief on Grimm’s behalf with the Fourth Circuit, arguing it was the administration’s position that the school board’s policy specifically violated federal law. Then, in May this year, the administration expanded that opinion into a directive. Though it still didn’t have the force of law, the directive put all schools receiving federal funding on notice: Should they deny transgender students access to facilities that conform to students’ gender identity, they would be in violation of federal law and subject to lawsuits. The Fourth Circuit relied heavily on this guidance in siding with Grimm earlier this year.
It is not clear whether the Roberts Court will step into the issue of transgender students’ rights at this time. So far, no other federal appeals court has weighed in on the issue.
Meanwhile, 22 states have filed a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s 2016 directive, arguing that the administration overstepped its authority. That lawsuit is also in its early stages.
Both Grimm’s lawsuit and the states’ lawsuit in response suggest the issue of transgender rights and sex discrimination will end up before the Roberts Court at some point.