Английская Википедия:Bathroom bill

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Globalize Шаблон:Use mdy dates Шаблон:Transgender sidebar A bathroom bill is the common name for legislation or a statute that denies access to public toilets by gender or transgender identity. Bathroom bills affect access to sex-segregated public facilities for an individual based on a determination of their sex as defined in some specific way, such as their sex as assigned at birth, their sex as listed on their birth certificate, or the sex that corresponds to their gender identity.[1] A bathroom bill can either be inclusive or exclusive of transgender individuals, depending on the aforementioned definition of their sex.

Proponents of the bills argue that such legislation is necessary to maintain privacy, protect what they claim to be an innate sense of modesty held by most cisgender people, prevent voyeurism, assault, molestation, and rape,[2] and retain psychological comfort.[3][4] Critics of the bills argue that they do not make public restrooms any safer for cisgender (non-transgender) people, and that they make public restrooms less safe for both transgender people and gender non-conforming cisgender people.[5][6][7] Additionally, critics claim there have been no cases of a transgender person attacking a cisgender person in a public restroom,[5][8] although there has been one reported incident of voyeurism in a fitting room.[9] The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics are all opposed to bathroom bills.[10][11][12][13]

One bathroom bill, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act in North Carolina, was approved as a law in 2016, although portions of the measure were later repealed in 2017 as part of a compromise between the Democratic governor and Republican-controlled Legislature. Also in 2016, guidance was issued by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education stating that schools which receive federal money must treat a student's gender identity as their sex (for example, in regard to bathrooms).[14] This policy was revoked in 2017.[14]Шаблон:TOC limit

United States

Шаблон:See alsoSince 2021, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Idaho have enacted bathroom bills.[15][16]

State legislatures in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have proposed bathroom bills. The National Center for Transgender Equality, an LGBTQ advocacy group, calls these bills discriminatory.[17]

Jurisdiction

Шаблон:Unreferenced section

Файл:2018.03.24 March for Our Lives, Washington, DC USA 4504 (27124276608).jpg
"Trans bathrooms never killed anyone!" sign at the 2018 March for Our Lives

Each of the states in the U.S. is a sovereign entity with the ability to make its own laws, which are secondary to federal law under the doctrine of federalism as carved out in the Constitution. To pass federal (national) laws, the government has to justify that the topic affects some national interest as defined in that document. For example, the law may apply only to federal property. Alternatively, a law may apply to state property, but it might be argued to affect a federal interest. Moreover, each state may delegate powers to its local governments. Thus, there are federal, state and local laws that govern toilets and other intimate spaces. Additionally, federal or state agencies may be authorized to issue regulations to further clarify laws, but they are only valid if they are consistent with the overarching legislation under which they were issued. Building laws (including regulations) in some states require that toilets be physically separated for both sexes, making unisex toilets virtually illegal. Unisex toilets have been increasingly put into operation in universities and large cities, although most of these institutions also offer the alternative of sex-separated spaces.

Examples

In a landmark 2013 case, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled in favor of six-year-old transgender student Coy Mathis to use the girls' bathroom at her elementary school. It was the first ruling of its kind in the United States and one of the first high-profile transgender rights cases, garnering huge amounts of media attention.[18]

In May 2016, the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Education released a joint guidance on the application of Title IX protections to transgender students.[19] The guidance stated that for the purpose of Title IX, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education treat a student's gender identity as their sex. The guidance was followed by a formal "Dear Colleague" letter on May 13.[20]

In October 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender male student who was barred from using the boys' bathrooms at his high school in Gloucester County, Virginia.[21] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had previously ruled that Grimm could use these restrooms, but the Supreme Court stayed that decision in August.[22]

In February 2016, the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, adopted an ordinance which, it said, was intended to allow transgender persons a right to access bathrooms according to gender identity.[23] The preexisting ordinance, in § 12-58 prohibited discrimination race, religion or national origin. In addition, the preexisting ordinance in § 12-59 banned discrimination based on sex but specifically exempted bathrooms, changing rooms and other intimate spaces from sex discrimination prohibitions, thus allowing separation based on sex.[24] The ordinance did not ban discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. By the February 2016 amendment, the City Council added gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and marital status to the protected categories. It also deleted this provision that allowed separation based on "sex". In so doing, it essentially eliminated the word "sex" from the city ordinance, leaving the term gender. The North Carolina legislature reacted by passing the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act (HB2). In addition to making other changes, the bill defined the issue of bathroom access as one of statewide concern, defined sex as biological.[25] It required that all bathrooms be separated by biological sex. It did allow for business owners to apply for a waiver to make single-entry bathrooms all-gender/mixed-sex. Afterward, advocacy groups, celebrities, and businesses joined in a boycott of the state.[26] Later, in a "compromise", the legislature agreed to repeal HB2, but it also barred localities from making any changes regarding bathrooms until 2020.[27]

Shortly after HB2 was passed, in May 2016, in the last year of President Obama's presidency, the U.S. Justice Department sued North Carolina over its 'bathroom bill' in order to stop its implementation.[28] Moreover, advocates claim that businesses in North Carolina have enforced toilet restrictions on transgender customers at their discretion.[29] Mississippi also limited public toilet usage through the enactment of a law that protects religious beliefs, citing: "male (man) or female (woman) refers to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth", which does not consider transgender and intersex people.[29] Later, the Justice Department under Trump withdrew its opposition to this and similar state laws and policies.

CurrentlyШаблон:When according to the American Civil Liberties Union there are currently 469 anti-LGBTQ bills in the US, most targeting transgender people. Current examples include Kansas SB 180.[30]

Public perception

Шаблон:Update Public opinion regarding "transgender bathroom rights" in the United States is mixed:

Date(s) conducted Support laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their birth sex Oppose laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their birth sex Don't know / NA Margin of error Sample Conducted by Polling type
June 10, 2019 45% 47% +/- 3.5 percentage points 1,100 American adults Pew Research Cellphone and landline phones
May 3, 2017 – May 7, 2017 48% 45% 7% 4% 1,011 adults American adults Gallup Cellphone and landline phones
March 2017 40% 40% ? ? YouGov ?
February 10, 2017 – February 19, 2017 39% 53% 2.6% 2,031 adults Public Religion Research Institute Live interviews via RDD telephones and cell phones
August 16, 2016 – September 12, 2016, 2016 46% 51% 3% 2.4% 4,538 respondents Pew Research Web and mail
May 4, 2016 – May 8, 2016 50% 40% 10% ? ? Gallup ?
June 3, 2015 – June 4, 2015 46% 41% 12% 4.1% 1,300 unweighted respondents CBS / NYT ?
April 28, 2016 – May 1, 2016 38% 57% 5% 3% 1,001 adults CNN / ORC International Live interviews via landline telephones and cell phones
March 26, 2016 – March 28, 2016 37% 37% 26% 4% 1,000 adult American citizens YouGov Online interviews
June 3, 2015 – June 4, 2015 38% 37% 25% 4.1% 994 American adults Huffington Post / YouGov ?

Reception

Шаблон:See also Proponents of bathroom bills argue that such legislation is necessary to maintain privacy, protect what they claim to be an innate sense of modesty held by most cisgender people, prevent voyeurism, assault, molestation, and rape,[2] and retain psychological comfort.[3][4]

Critics of bathroom bills have argued that they place transgender people in danger without making cisgender people any safer and that they even make things more dangerous for gender non-conforming cisgender people.[5][6] Many national health and anti-sexual assault organizations oppose bathroom bills, such as the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[10][11][12][13] The UCLA's Williams Institute has tracked prevalence of crimes in bathrooms since the passage of various protections for the transgender population and has found that there has been no significant change in the number of crimes.[18] Marcie Bianco, writing for Mic, pointed out that there is not a single documented case of a transgender person attacking a cisgender person in a public restroom,[5] although there has been one reported incident of voyeurism in a fitting room.[9] The controversy has been labeled a moral panic by Pacific Standard,[31] and Dan Savage went so far as to call it an "anti-trans blood libel".[32]

According to the largest U.S. survey of transgender people ever undertaken, carried out by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) in 2015 with 27,715 respondents, 1% of respondents reported being sexually assaulted in a public restroom for being transgender. 12% reported being verbally harassed in a public restroom, and another one percent reported being non-sexually physically assaulted for being transgender. 9% reported being denied the right to use a public restroom consistent with their expressed gender.[33] The NCTE acknowledges in its report that this survey was undertaken before any bathroom bills had been passed or were in the news.[33] Multiple studies find that denying trans people to the bathroom that they identify with is associated with poor mental health, suicide, and suicide attempts.[34][35]

A 2018 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law finds that "there is no current evidence that granting transgender individuals access to gender-corresponding restrooms results in an increase in sexual offenses".[36]

Education

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, under President Barack Obama issued "guidance" to state and private educational institutions stating that these institutions had to allow transgender students to use toilets according to their gender identity. The Obama guidance suggested that schools and private institutions risked federal funding if they did not comply.[37]

How the guidance was issued was controversial. Guidance procedures are normally issued only to other federal agencies. These guidances are then sometimes shared with state entities and private institutions as advisory, but they are normally not compulsive. While agencies can issue regulations that are consistent with existing law, they cannot exceed or change the law. Moreover, those regulations must comply with the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires notice to the public and a period for comments. Opponents argued that using the joint guidance was inappropriate and was designed to circumvent the APA. The Department of Justice, the Department of Education, advocacy groups and private litigants brought cases to enforce the joint guidance interpretation.

One of those cases, G.G. v. Gloucester School Board, reached the Supreme Court in 2016. On February 22, 2017, about a month after Trump's inauguration, the government withdrew the May 13 guidance.[38] In withdrawing the guidance, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated in a letter, "The prior guidance documents did not contain sufficient legal analysis or explain how the interpretation was consistent with the language of Title IX. ... Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue."[39] On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court determined that, in light of the changed position of the government, the case, should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in the lower courts.[40]

Employment

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a key U.S. agency that enforces federal workplace rules. States also have their own rules but in a conflict, if constitutional, federal law is supreme. A key statute is Title VII. Title VII, passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination in the workplace "because of" race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII does not mention sexual orientation or gender identity.[41]

Although few dispute that Congress was thinking about gender identity or sexual orientation in 1964, advocates have argued that sexual orientation and gender identity are included in the law's reference to "sex". In 2012, the EEOC adopted this view. It ruled in Macy v. Holder, a case involving federal employees, that Title VII required that "gender identity" be treated the same as "sex".[42] It also ruled soon thereafter that a transgender person had to be afforded access to a public toilet matching the person's gender identity without a requirement of surgery or status identification.[43] These decisions departed from then existing legal precedent as well as the EEOC's own long line of precedents. The EEOC began to bring and support lawsuits across the country to enforce its interpretation. Citing the EEOC's holding, several courts later followed the EEOC's interpretation, although some rejected it.

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided three cases about the rights of transgender people under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

  • R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case involved a transgender woman who was fired from her job at a funeral home after she asked to begin wearing the uniform for women rather than men. The funeral home's owner refused, citing the religious concerns of the employer and potential clients. The court ruled that transgender people are protected from employment discrimination. Regarding whether the decision affected the very existence of "sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes", Justice Gorsuch wrote: "none of these other laws are before us...we do not prejudge any such question today."[44]
  • Bostock v. Clayton County
  • Altitude Express, Inc. v Zarda

One has seen reversals of Obama-era policies at the federal level with respect to other statutes such as Title IX which prohibits denials of educational opportunity based on sex. In May 2016 the U.S. Department of Education and the Justice Department under the Obama Administration indicated that single-sex schools and schools receiving federal money must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.[45] That guidance was later withdrawn by the Department of Justice under President Trump.[46]

CurrentlyШаблон:Clarify in the U.S., each state, county, and city government enacts its own legislation governing how it will or will not address the rights of LGBT individuals; this includes provision of public toilets.

State legislation

Bathroom bills have been proposed and debated in a number of state legislatures. Several state bills are based on and closely resemble model legislation provided by the conservative lobbying organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-LGBT hate group.[47][48][49] The ADF's model legislation proposes giving any public school or university student the right to sue for $2,500 for each time they encountered a transgender classmate in a locker room or bathroom.[47][50]

Table

The following table summarizes state legislation and school guidelines regarding restroom access that either is currently in effect, or is still under deliberation with movement within the last yearШаблон:When:

State Applies to Summary Status Last Checked
AR Adults SB 270 criminalizes those who knowingly stay inside restrooms with a child of the opposite biological sex [1] Passed Senate, to be deliberated in the House on March 14, 2023 March 13, 2023
AR Students HB 1156 allows students to sue the school if they encounter a member of the opposite biological sex in a single-sex restroom Passed on March 13, 2023, awaiting to be signed into law [2] March 13, 2023
AK Students HB 105 separates students by biological sex in restrooms and locker rooms Referred to committee on March 8, 2023 [3] March 13, 2023
AL Students HB 322 requires public K-12 schools to designate use of rooms where students may be in various stages of undress on the basis of biological sex Passed on April 7, 2022
CT Adults SB 00467 permits businesses to ban trans people from bathrooms Introduced January 18, 2023, referred to committee [4] March 17, 2023
FL Adults HB 1521, "Provides that any person who willfully enters a restroom or changing facility designated for the opposite sex on the premises of a covered entity, for a purpose other than the authorized uses listed in the bill, who refuses to depart when asked to do so by a person authorized to make such a request, commits the criminal offense of trespass."[51] In effect as of July 1, 2023 [5] July 8, 2023
ID Adults ID S1003 and S1016 relieve public works contractors from the obligation of providing restrooms under any basis other than "biological sex" S1016 passed house on March 3, 2023 [6] March 17, 2023
ID Students ID S1100 separates school bathrooms by biological sex Passed on March 16, 2023 [7] March 17, 2023
IL Students IL SB1659 separates school bathrooms by biological sex Referred to committee on February 8, 2023 [8] March 17, 2023
IN Adults HB 1520, "Makes it a Class B misdemeanor if: (1) a male knowingly or intentionally enters a restroom that is designated to be used only by females; or (2) a female knowingly or intentionally enters a restroom that is designated to be used only by males." A reintroduction of HB 1348 from previous year. Referred to committee January 19, 2023 [9] March 13, 2023
ND Students and Adults HB 1473 separates restrooms and shower rooms by biological sex for certain public correctional facilities and colleges To be deliberated in the House on March 15, 2023 March 13, 2023
NH Students HB 104 defines all multi-stall school restrooms as "single sex." Under deliberation in the House [10] March 13, 2023
NH Students HB 619 requires students to use only the restrooms that correspond to their birth certificate. Under deliberation in the House [11] March 13, 2023
OK Students SB 615 requires students to use restrooms and locker rooms that match the sex listed on their birth certificates. Requires schools to provide a single-occupancy changing room as a reasonable accommodation for students who do not wish to comply. In effect as of May 25, 2022 [12]
TN Adults HB 1151 modified the definition of "public spaces" in Tennessee indecent exposure laws to include multi-user restrooms, locker rooms, or dressing rooms. Existing interpretations of TN law could construe a trans person using such facilities as indecent exposure if another person finds their presence objectionable.[13] In effect as of July 1, 2019 [14]
VA Students September 2022 model policies for VA public schools require students to use " bathrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that correspond with their biological sex." Model policies issued to VA schools on September 21, 2022 [15]
Файл:Map of current Bathroom Legislation in the United States in regard to Gender and Gender Identity.png
Map of states and counties in the United States which have enacted legislation on restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-segregated public accommodations, in regard to their access from those who are transgender, or have gender dysphoria:Шаблон:POV-inline
Шаблон:Legend Шаблон:Legend Шаблон:Legend
Шаблон:Legend Шаблон:Legend striped
Шаблон:Legend Шаблон:Legend striped

Alaska

Anchorage, Alaska, prohibited discrimination based on gender identity in 2015.[52] In 2017, Alaska Family Action proposed a direct initiative bathroom bill that would have overturned protections for transgender individuals. Proposition 1 would have made it legal for "any employer, public accommodation, or other person to establish and enforce sex-specific standards or policies concerning access to intimate facilities such as locker rooms, showers, changing rooms, and restrooms." The measure defines the term sex as "An individual's immutable biological condition of being male or female, as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth."[53] Voters rejected the bill in April 2018.[54]

Alabama

SB1, also known as the "Alabama Privacy Act", was introduced in Alabama on February 7, 2017, by state Senator Phil Williams in response to an inclusive bathroom policy enacted by Target Corporation in 2016.[55] The bill, if passed, would require attendants to be present in mixed-gender public bathrooms "to monitor the appropriate use of the rest room and answer any questions or concerns posed by users." The bill stalled and was never brought to a vote.[56][57]

HB 322 was introduced on February 9, 2022. The bill's primary sponsor was Scott Stadthagen and "requires public K-12 schools to designate use of rooms where students may be in various stages of undress on the basis of biological sex". The bill passed on April 7, 2022, and was signed into law by Alabama Governor Kay Ivey on April 8, 2022[58][59]

Arizona

A 2013 proposed amendment to Arizona bill S.B. 1432 would have allowed police to demand identification from anyone suspected of using the 'wrong' public bathrooms or showers, meaning the facilities assigned to the sex not matching the sex on their birth certificate. If found guilty, a person would have been subject to up to six months in jail and a $2500 fine under a disorderly conduct charge.[60][61] The proposal was withdrawn by its sponsor, John Kavanagh.[62][63]

Kavanagh introduced S.B. 1040 on January 31, 2023, which requires public schools to provide separate accommodations to a person who is "unwilling or unable" to use a bathroom which matches their "immutable biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of the person's birth." Additionally, a student who encounters a person of the opposite sex in a restroom may have a cause of action against the school and may sue to "recover monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered."[64][65] Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed the bill on June 8, 2023.

Arkansas

HB1156 was introduced by Rep. Mary Bentley on January 17, 2023. It requires public schools to provide reasonable accommodation for an individual who is "unwilling or unable" to use a bathroom designated for the individual's sex, where sex is defined as "the physical condition of being male or female based on genetics and physiology". A public school may be sued if a student encounters a member of the opposite sex in the bathroom who received permission to be there from the school, and fines may be assessed for superintendents, principals, and/or individual teachers by the Professional Licensure Standards Board. The House approved the bill on an 80–10 vote on February 1, 2023.[66][67]

SB270 was introduced by lead sponsor John Payton and primary sponsor Cindy Crawford on February 15, 2023, to amend the criminal offense of sexual indecency with a child to include a person "exposing his or her sex organs to a minor of the opposite sex" in a bathroom, or entering a bathroom "that is assigned to persons of the opposite sex while knowing a minor of the opposite sex is present". The penalty for violating this law includes up to a year in jail and up to a $2,500 fine.[67][68]

After being pulled back to committee on March 2, 2023[69] as the result of a speech by Sen. Clarke Tucker,[70] the bill was revised, resubmitted, and passed the senate on March 7, waiting for house deliberation on March 9.[69]

California

Файл:All gender restroom sign.jpg
Gender neutral and handicap-accessible restroom sign in California

AB 1266, also known as the "School Success and Opportunity Act", was introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano on February 22, 2013. It requires that pupils be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and use facilities consistent with their gender identity, without respect to the gender listed in a pupil's records. AB 1266 was approved by Governor Brown on August 12, 2013. A campaign to overturn AB1266 led by Frank Schubert failed to garner enough signatures to appear on a ballot the following year.[71]

On Sept 19, 2014 Governor Brown vetoed 2 potty parity bills, SB1350 and SB1358 introduced by senators Ricardo Lara and Lois Wolk. These bills would have required changing stations in public bathrooms to be accessible to both men and women. Brown cited too many regulations as a rationale for his vetos.[72]

AB 1732, also known as the "Equal Restroom Access Act", was authored by Assembly Member Phil Ting and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 29, 2016, after approval by the Assembly and Senate. The law made California the first state in the US to require all single-occupancy public toilets to be gender-neutral beginning March 1, 2017.[73][74][75][76] This includes California schools, government buildings, businesses and public toilets.[77] Legislation has also been proposed in California that "requires...private buildings open to the public, as specified, to maintain at least one safe, sanitary, and convenient baby diaper changing station that is accessible to women and men".[78][79][80][81] Since California passed AB 1732, states like New York, Vermont, New Mexico, the District of Columbia and several other jurisdictions have followed suit.[82][83]

SB 760 was introduced by State Sen. Josh Newman on February 17, 2023. The law requires all K-12 schools to provide access to gender-neutral bathrooms during school hours.[84][85]

Colorado

In Colorado, in February 2015, a bill died in committee that proposed banning transgender people from using changing rooms of their gender identity.[86] This bill would have prevented discrimination lawsuits against facility managers who chose to deny entry into facilities to transgender people.

Florida

A bathroom bill was introduced in Florida in the spring of 2015 as H.B. 583 by Representative Frank Artiles.[87][88] Artiles complained that, under laws protecting transgender use of restrooms, "A man such as myself can walk into the bathroom at LA Fitness while women are taking showers, changing, and simply walk in there." His bill would have made it illegal for transgender people to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity in restaurants, workplaces, or schools. The consequences would be up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.[89][90][91] Proponents claimed that the bill was designed to prevent "assault, battery, molestation, rape, voyeurism, and exhibitionism".[2] Opponents claimed that the only purpose was to be "discriminatory" and to "criminalize [transgender people] for simply going about their daily lives".[92] The bill went through two House committees, but did not pass.[93] There were no further bathroom bills filed in the Florida state legislature in 2015 or 2016, but organizations like Equality Florida said in 2017 that they were preparing for the possibility of future bills.[88]

Indiana

In January 2021, Indiana State Senator Bruce Borders introduced a Bill to the Senate that would make it a Class-B Misdemeanor for any person to use a bathroom or locker-room that did not correlate with their birth sex.[94]

Kansas

In 2016, the Kansas legislature introduced a "bathroom bill" that was nearly identical to the ADF's model "bathroom bill" legislation. The bill died after public protests over the legislation's provision allowing students to sue their school if they encountered a transgender person in a bathroom or locker room.[47][49]

A 2023 Kansas law shields government agencies and schools from lawsuits if they prohibit transgender women from using women's bathrooms, but does not mandate restrictions.[95]

Kentucky

A 2015 proposal in Kentucky, also based on the ADF model legislation,[47] would have allowed students to sue their school if they encountered transgender students using the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify. It would have allowed transgender students instead to request special accommodations, including access to single-stall or faculty restrooms.[96][97] On February 27, 2015, the bill S.B. 76 passed in the Kentucky Senate,[98] but it did not pass the Kentucky House.[87]

Massachusetts

Massachusetts prohibited discrimination in sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity in 2016. It includes a provision prohibiting assertion of a gender identity for an "improper purpose", which was meant to address the criticism that a man could insincerely claim to be a transgender woman in order to gain access to a bathroom for the purpose of looking at women inside (though assault, harassment, and "peeping Tom" offenses are also crimes which can be charged separately from merely being present). Voters were asked whether to repeal this law when Question 3 appeared on the ballot on November 6, 2018. This was the first time such a question was put to voters at the state level. The law was upheld by approximately 1.76 million votes for and 834,000 votes against.[99] A study of Massachusetts cities that enacted a similar ban in the two years before the statewide ban took effect found no impact on the rate bathroom crimes, which were rare to begin with.[100]

Minnesota

A bathroom bill was introduced in Minnesota in 2016. It was a word-for-word copy of the ADF's model legislation.[87][101][47]

Mississippi

House bill 1258 was introduced in 2016, but did not make any progress.[102] It would have charged any person who "lewdly and willfully exposed his person, or private parts thereof" with a misdemeanor.[103] Notably, an exception was explicitly made for transgender people who had taken HRT for a period of at least 12 months, requiring such persons to be able to provide written proof from a doctor.

Missouri

Two bathroom bills were introduced in Missouri in 2017.[104]

Nevada

On March 19, 2015, Victoria Dooling, a Nevada state representative, proposed a bathroom bill that would apply to public schoolchildren in the state.[105] It later died in committee.[106]

New Mexico

In March 2019, a bill passed both houses of the New Mexico Legislature (House vote 54-12 and Senate vote 23–15) to explicitly allow gender-neutral bathrooms. The bill was signed into law by the Governor within the same month and went into effect on July 1, 2019.[107]

New York

On March 7, 2016, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an Executive Order requiring that all New York City municipalities make available to the public and their employees a single-sex facility consistent with their gender identities. Individuals using these facilities would not need to show any identification or medical documentation to verify their gender.[108]

The New York State Legislature, in July 2020, passed a bill to implement gender-neutral bathrooms within all single occupancy public toilets across the state.[109]

North Carolina

Шаблон:Main

Файл:2016 River Parade 5 (28425722173).jpg
Waterborne protest opposing HB-2

On March 23, 2016, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R) signed into law the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act (commonly known as House Bill 2). The law states that in government buildings, individuals (such as students at state-operated schools) may only use restrooms and changing facilities that correspond to the sex identified on their birth certificates. Transgender persons born in North Carolina can obtain modified birth certificates on which their sex is different from what was originally identified at the time of their birth, but only if they have undergone sex reassignment surgery.[110] For those born in other places, the ability to change the sex listed on a birth certificate is governed by their place of birth (which may have substantially different requirements, and in some cases may not allow such changes).[110]

The bill also overturns an LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance that had been passed by Charlotte, North Carolina, prevents local governments in the state from enacting similar ordinances, and prevents cities from raising their minimum wages higher than that of the state.[111]

On August 26, 2016, a U.S. District Court judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the University of North Carolina from enforcing the restroom provisions of the bill.[112]

On March 30, 2017, the legislature partially repealed House Bill 2, removing the restrictions on restroom use by transgender individuals. The compromise agreement was criticized by both LGBT rights groups and conservatives.[113]

Oklahoma

On May 25, 2022, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a bill into law that will require students at public charter schools and public schools to use locker rooms and bathrooms that match the sex listed on their birth certificate.[114]

South Carolina

In April 2016, Sen. Lee Bright brought a bill (S. 1203) to the South Carolina Senate, that was essentially the same as North Carolina's HB2.[115] The bill would block local governments from passing anti-discriminatory ordinances such as the use of public bathrooms by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals.[115] Senator Bright's bill would maintain that public bathrooms be used in accordance to "biological sex".[115] An online poll taken from a news site stated that 75% of voters did not think the bill was necessary.[115] The legislation failed to meet the crossover deadline for bills to pass from one legislative chamber to the other.[116]

In December 2016, a similar bill was introduced by Representative Steven Wayne Long in the South Carolina house (H. 3012).[117]

South Dakota

Шаблон:Main On February 16, 2016, the South Dakota Senate voted 20–15 to approve a bathroom bill that, had it passed, would have been the first in the country to require public schoolchildren to use facilities that match the sex they were assigned at birth.[118] South Dakota's bill was, according to ADF's legal counsel, based on the ADF's model bathroom bill legislation.[48] On March 1, 2016, the governor of South Dakota, Dennis Daugaard, vetoed the bill.[119] Early in the 2017 legislative session Republican Senator Lance Russell refiled the bathroom bill, but on January 30 he withdrew the bill because Daugaard again promised a veto.[120]

Tennessee

On April 6, 2016, the Tennessee House Education Administration and Planning Committee, which is part of the Tennessee House of Representatives, approved a bathroom bill that would apply to public schools and colleges in the state and would require students to use a restroom that corresponds with their sex as identified at birth.[1][121] Before the bill could proceed further, the house sponsor of the bill decided to delay its consideration for a year to allow for further investigation, citing concerns that it could interfere with Title IX funding.[121] In 2017, the bill was re-introduced, but died in the Senate Education Committee.[122]

In 2019, Tennessee governor Bill Lee signed into law legislation that modified the definition of indecent exposure to include acts committed in restrooms and locker rooms if they are designated for use by a single sex and the person committing the act is of the opposite sex (as assigned at birth). The original version of this legislation would have criminalized the mere act of a transgender individual entering a restroom opposite to their sex as assigned at birth, but this provision was eventually removed. Nevertheless, critics of the legislation were still concerned that the bill would be interpreted as condoning harassment of transgender individuals in bathrooms by others who find their presence objectionable.[123]

Texas

Файл:Texans protest the Trans bathroom bill outside the senate committee hearing on SB-6 (32468713294).jpg
Public opposition to SB6 in the State Capitol

A bill introduced to the Texas House of Representatives in March 2015 proposed that any student who encountered another student who does not identify with their "biological sex" in a shared restroom could be awarded $2,000 in damage reparations for "mental anguish". The school itself would also be liable for failing to take action against known transgender students using their gender identified restroom.[124][125] An analysis by NBC News determined that the Texas bill was influenced by ADF's model legislation,[47] which also proposes $2,500 in damages per encounter with a transgender person in a shared restroom.[50]

Another bill, introduced to the Texas House in February 2015, suggested that anyone over the age of 13 years found to be in a public restroom of a gender not their own should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, spend up to a year in jail, and face a $4000 fine.[126] Under this proposed bill, building managers who repeatedly and knowingly allow transgender individuals to use the facility of their gender identity would also face a fine of up to $10,000.[127]

Several bills were filed in both the regular legislative session and first special session of the Texas Legislature in 2017. Sponsored by State Senator Lois Kolkhorst and championed by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, the Texas Senate passed SB6 in the regular session and SB3 in the Special Session by a vote of 21-10 largely along party lines (Senator Eddie Lucio Jr. was the only Democrat to vote in favor of each bill). Neither bill went to the House floor for a vote (although SB6 received a hearing by the House's State Affairs committee). SB6 would have limited bathroom access based on the sex listed on one's birth certificate while SB3 would have allowed an individual to use the restroom listed on several state IDs as well (e.g. driver's license or concealed carry license).[128][129]

Speaker of the Texas House Joe Straus voiced his opposition to the bills, citing the economic impact that North Carolina saw while HB2 was law. He was also quoted by a New Yorker article as saying, "I'm disgusted by all this. Tell the lieutenant governor I don't want the suicide of a single Texan on my hands."[130]

In September 2018, Kolkhorst indicated that she would try again to pass similar legislation.[131]

Vermont

On May 11, 2018, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed a bill requiring all single-user public restrooms to be gender-neutral.[132]

Virginia

In 2016, Delegate Mark Cole sponsored House Bill 663, a bathroom bill restricting public restroom use according to a person's "anatomical sex", defined as "the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person's anatomy", with violators liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $50. HB663 was introduced on January 11, 2016, and died in committee in February 2016.[133] It was widely reported that HB663 would require adults to inspect the genitals of children before they were allowed to enter the appropriate facilities, but this was dismissed by Snopes as a misleading interpretation of the bill's text,[134] which states that administrators "shall develop and implement policies that require every restroom ... that is designated for use by a specific gender to solely be used by individuals whose anatomical sex matches such gender designation."[133] Cole sponsored House Bill 781 one day later on January 12, 2016, which used the same wording but substituted "biological sex" for "anatomical sex". The use of "biological sex" allowed for an update via amended birth certificate. HB781 also died in committee in February.[135]

In early 2017, HB1612, proposed by Republican Bob Marshall would use the "born sex" to define which restroom, changing facility, or private area in government buildings was permitted for a given individual.[136] HB1612 also stated that individuals that did not use the bathroom of their born sex would be subject to civil action. Additionally, HB1612 required school principals to inform the parents of a child if the child did not wish to identify as their born sex. The bill was killed in subcommittee on January 19, 2017.[137]

Washington

In early 2015, SB 6548, which would prevent transgender individuals from using the bathroom associated with the gender with which they identify, was introduced in the senate but failed to pass.[138] In December 2015, Washington State's Human Rights Commission enacted a rule that allowed transgender individuals to use bathrooms conforming with their gender identities. Early in 2016, a bill to overturn the ruling (SB 6443) was voted on in the state Senate, and defeated by a margin of 25–24.[139] An attempt to put a state voter initiative on the November 2016 ballot, I-1515, failed to reach the number of signatures necessary to appear on the ballot.[140] On December 5, 2016, a new bill, HB 1011, was pre-filed in the Washington State House. This bill would prevent transgender individuals from using a bathroom of their gender identity unless they have had sex-reassignment surgery, and would prevent local municipalities from enacting ordinances contradicting the directive.[141]

Wisconsin

In November 2015, Wisconsin held a hearing on a bathroom bill to require public schoolchildren to use facilities that match the sex they were assigned at birth. According to critics, the bill would also violate the federal government's Office for Civil Rights's 2014 statement that federal nondiscrimination law covered gender identity. The following month, the bill was revised to allow public schools to offer gender-neutral bathrooms.[142][143]

Canada

In Canada, several bills tried to include gender identity and gender expression among the characteristics protected from discrimination and eligible for consideration in sentencing hate criminals.[144]

In 2009, New Democratic Party (NDP) MP Bill Siksay introduced Bill C-389 to the 40th Parliament.[145] It passed the House of Commons in 2011 and was defeated in the Senate.[146]

Bill C-279, introduced to the 41st Parliament in 2011 by NDP MP Randall Garrison, was passed and sent to the Senate in March 2013.[147] In 2015, Senator Don Plett introduced three amendments, one of which exempted public washrooms and changerooms from protection.[148] It was defeated. Garrison reintroduced it to the 42nd Parliament as Bill C-204.[149]

Bill C-16 was introduced on May 17, 2016, by Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould to the 42nd Parliament. It passed both houses and became law upon receiving royal assent on June 19, 2017, effective immediately.[150][151][152]

See also

Шаблон:Portal

References

Шаблон:Reflist

Шаблон:Transgender topics

Партнерские ресурсы
Криптовалюты
Магазины
Хостинг
Разное

  1. ↑ 1,0 1,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  2. ↑ 2,0 2,1 2,2 Шаблон:Cite web
  3. ↑ 3,0 3,1 Шаблон:Cite magazine
  4. ↑ 4,0 4,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  5. ↑ 5,0 5,1 5,2 5,3 Шаблон:Cite web
  6. ↑ 6,0 6,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  7. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  8. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  9. ↑ 9,0 9,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  10. ↑ 10,0 10,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  11. ↑ 11,0 11,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  12. ↑ 12,0 12,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  13. ↑ 13,0 13,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  14. ↑ 14,0 14,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  15. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  16. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  17. ↑ National Center for Transgender Equality. "Take Action Against Anti-Trans Legislation Now!" Retrieved from Шаблон:Cite web
  18. ↑ 18,0 18,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  19. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  20. ↑ Шаблон:Cite letter
  21. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  22. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  23. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  24. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  25. ↑ Шаблон:Cite webШаблон:Dead link
  26. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  27. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  28. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  29. ↑ 29,0 29,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  30. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  31. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  32. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  33. ↑ 33,0 33,1 Шаблон:Cite web.
  34. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  35. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  36. ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
  37. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  38. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  39. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  40. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  41. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  42. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  43. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  44. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  45. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  46. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  47. ↑ 47,0 47,1 47,2 47,3 47,4 47,5 Шаблон:Cite news
  48. ↑ 48,0 48,1 Шаблон:Cite news
  49. ↑ 49,0 49,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  50. ↑ 50,0 50,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  51. ↑ CS/HB 1521 Summary, Page 2
  52. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  53. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  54. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  55. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  56. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  57. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  58. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  59. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  60. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  61. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  62. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  63. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  64. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  65. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  66. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  67. ↑ 67,0 67,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  68. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  69. ↑ 69,0 69,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  70. ↑ Шаблон:Citation
  71. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  72. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  73. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  74. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  75. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  76. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  77. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  78. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  79. ↑ Senate Floor Analyses http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1358#
  80. ↑ Jerry Brown vetoes bills to help men change baby diapers Sacramento Bee. September 19, 2014 http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2610428.html
  81. ↑ SB-1358 Baby diaper changing stations http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1358
  82. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  83. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  84. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  85. ↑ SB-760 School facilities: all-gender restrooms https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB760
  86. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  87. ↑ 87,0 87,1 87,2 The Editorial Board, For Transgender Americans, Legal Battles Over Restrooms Шаблон:Webarchive, The New York Times, July 27, 2015
  88. ↑ 88,0 88,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  89. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  90. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  91. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  92. ↑ Шаблон:Cite webШаблон:Dead link
  93. ↑ Шаблон:Cite act
  94. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  95. ↑ Kobach says trans Kansans' IDs will be changed back to their sex assigned at birth
  96. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  97. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  98. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  99. ↑ Creamer, Lisa; "Mass. Votes 'Yes' On Question 3 To Keep Law Protecting Transgender People In Public Accommodations" Шаблон:Webarchive, WBUR, November 6, 2018
  100. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  101. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  102. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  103. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  104. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  105. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  106. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  107. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  108. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  109. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  110. ↑ 110,0 110,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  111. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  112. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  113. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  114. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  115. ↑ 115,0 115,1 115,2 115,3 Шаблон:Cite web
  116. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  117. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  118. ↑ Шаблон:Cite magazine
  119. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  120. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  121. ↑ 121,0 121,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  122. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  123. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  124. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  125. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  126. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  127. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  128. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  129. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  130. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  131. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  132. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  133. ↑ 133,0 133,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  134. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  135. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  136. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  137. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  138. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  139. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  140. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  141. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  142. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  143. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  144. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  145. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  146. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  147. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  148. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  149. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
  150. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  151. ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
  152. ↑ Шаблон:Cite news
Источник — http://wikihandbk.com/ruwiki/index.php?title=Английская_Википедия:Bathroom_bill&oldid=13419390