Some Bills Give Extra Rights to Cisgender People, Allowing Them to Sue if They Encounter a Trans Person in the ‘Wrong’ Restroom

North Carolinaâ€™s HB2 â€œbathroom billâ€ was an expensive embarrassment, so itâ€™s a mystery why lawmakers around the country have decided to introduce similar legislation in their own states.

Twelve bills have been filed across nine states targeting transgender people using public restrooms. These bills make up the majority of 20 anti-trans laws already being considered around the country this year.

So-called â€œbathroom billsâ€ target transgender people by forcing them to use the restroom associated with either the gender on their birth certificate or their assigned sex at birth. These laws have proven to be unenforceable on a broad scale, as they would require supervision of public restrooms at all times.

A bill inÂ AlabamaÂ does not define gender but does segregate public restrooms.

Kentuckyâ€™s HB 106 was introduced by Democratic representative Rick Nelson and and segregates public restrooms based on â€œbiological sex,â€ a vague term usually used to describe chromosomal sex and does not account for the existence of intersex people.

Another Kentucky bill, HB 141, allows cisgender students to sue their school if they encounter a transgender student in the restroom.

Minnesota is considering a house file that would require students to use the restroom associated with their birth sex, which excludes both intersex people and transgender students who have legally changed their birth certificates.

Missouriâ€™s bills would not only segregate public restrooms, specifically school restrooms but also ban businesses and localities from adopting policies that conflict with the state law. This was one of the most controversial and wildly unconstitutional aspects of HB2 in North Carolina.

New Jerseyâ€™s approach is to require the state Attorney General to defend schools that violate the rights of students unless the students can prove medically that they are transgender. The law doesnâ€™t go into specifics but this suggests that trans students whose parents do not accept them would be equally unaccepted at school.

South Carolinaâ€™s H3012 bars localities from protecting transgender individuals. A separate bill in South Carolina also requires students to use the restroom of the sex they were assigned at birth.

Texasâ€™s proposed bill would both prevent local protections for transgender people and segregate school restrooms and locker rooms.

Washingtonâ€™s bill would create a loophole allowing businesses and public buildings to discriminate against transgender people trying to use public restrooms.

And a failed proposal in VirginiaÂ would have forced people to use the restroom associated with their assigned sex at birth. It also would have allowed people to sue if they encountered a transgender person in the restroom.

Specifically, most of the bills filed apply to schools, which means that transgender children are as likely to be at risk as transgender adults. The failed Virginia bill would have gone far enough to require that school administrators notify parents if a child asked to go by a different name or pronouns during the school day.

North Carolinaâ€™s HB2 has cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a September calculation from Wired. Since then, a special session costing the state thousands more in taxpayer money took place with the intended purpose of repealing the law. The repeal failed.

The Obama administration issued guidance in the form of a letter to public schools to encourage them to respect the rights of transgender students, but it unenforceable and was later challenged in court. Had it carried weight, the Trump administration would have had the right to overturn it.

Â

Hat tip: News & Observer