The legislation takes aim directly at trans individuals using the restroom or locker rooms, threatening those who “knowingly” and “willfully” enter facilities designated for the “opposite biological sex” with prison time. A first offense would count as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. Those caught using the bathroom in repeated offenses, however, could be convicted as felons and face up to five years in prison.

It’ll be interesting to see how this aligns with the Full Faith and Credit clause for someone who updates their birth certificate from another state that allows for that then uses the bathroom that aligns with said certificate.

  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    4 hours ago

    A felony? LOL

    I wonder if they are smart enough to put exceptions in for children where the father or mother may possibly take the child into the ‘wrong’ bathroom.

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I mean Republicans can’t govern. So if they weren’t persecuting a minority to appease their bigot base, what would they be doing?

  • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Do they include a definition of “biological sex”? And of how that’s going to be determined?

    Of course not. They have no fucking clue what they’re talking about. They just want to hurt people

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The people making this law have no idea that there are people who are biologically intersex and, if told, will dismiss it as irrelevant because they’re “a tiny minority”. Deaf people are also a small minority and it’s common practice to accommodate them. All people should be considered when making a law with the threat of jail time.

      • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        If it comes up in court, I guess they’ll be forced to specify if they’re defining biological sex by chromosomes, genitalia, or some other biological feature. Unfortunately, the law was made by people who are completely oblivious to the complexity of biological sex. This is why people shouldn’t be allowed to make laws without knowing the science if these things. Same thing with anti-abortion laws being made by people who don’t understand biology

  • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Oooh! Oooh! I remember this one!

    Next, businesses will have to create a separate restroom that says “TRANS ONLY” so things can be “separate but equal”…

    ಠ_ಠ

    • kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I would be weirdly fine with a trans bathroom as long as cis people genuinely can’t enter it… We would keep that shit immaculate and safe. Tiny little safe space with sinks and mirrors and toiletries and supportive allies anywhere you go.

      • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Except now you have a situation where armed individuals who masturbate to the 2nd amendment will wait idly by the TRANS ONLY bathroom for someone to walk out of it, murder the person who walked out of it, and say they feared for their lives because they tried to “groom them”.

        • InputZero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          At least in that situation the Trans person/people could reasonably expect the business/establishment to be an ally. That’s assuming there is no law that says there has to be a Trans only bathroom, any place which installs one would probably only be doing that because they’re an ally or Trans themselves. Now what your describing happening to businesses/establishments which are supportive of Trans people I can totally see happening.

      • Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 hours ago

        And giving them no where to feel comfortable in public is the entire point. Giving them their own washroom would be a short step in the right direction from the depraved place we’re in.

        • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yeah, Jim Crow was a compromise already. I think benchs, restaurant tables, bathrooms were non-existent generally for African Americans in the South.

    • Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      As a Canadian, I could have guessed… There’s a sort of obvious pattern that’s emerged over the last couple of decades involving the less populated areas being the most deathly afraid of the world at large, thanks in large part to the sample biases incepted through social media.

  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It’ll be interesting to see how this aligns with the Full Faith and Credit clause for someone who updates their birth certificate from another state that allows for that then uses the bathroom that aligns with said certificate.

    Only if the bill mentions birth certificate as the source for one’s “biological sex” and not something about genotype or phenotype at birth (both of which have different issues).

    I guess the right response to this is to get the absolute manliest-looking trans men to Idaho to use the public ladies’ room in places frequented by lots of the most fragile GOP-types. Monkey’s paw that shitstain of a bill.

    • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Only if the bill mentions birth certificate as the source for one’s “biological sex” and not something about genotype or phenotype at birth (both of which have different issues).

      Right, and what is the documentation that legally expresses that? A birth certificate. Seems really easy to say “I went to the bathroom that aligns with my birth certificate with the good faith intent to follow the law.” People can’t see their genotype or phenotype with their eyeballs, so relying on that document seems the best a lay person can do. Seems a good faith to follow the birth certificate, whatever it may be modified to.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        All of that is fair, except for one thing: you absolutely can see phenotype. It being observable characteristics is literally part of the definition. The pheno- prefix has a Greek root meaning to show or display, same origin as in phenomenon. A phenotype is thus categorizing something based on how it appears.

  • thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Gendered bathrooms should be banned. Things being gender-exclusive should generally be illegal (regarded as bigotry/hate).

    JUST PUT REAL WALLS INSTEAD OF STALLS

    • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I would agree, but…the line for the woman’s bathroom is so long…as long as there’s the same number of stalls and urinals as there would be if they were separated, I definitely support non-gendered!

      • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        40 minutes ago

        yeah, i’m nonbinary. i like taking advantage of whichever line is shortest when my anus’s floodgates are about to give because hey, i don’t fit either box easily and we don’t want me shitting on the floor. turning it into one line takes that advantage away from me (i’d have to ask “hey everyone my pooper’s leaking can i cut the line” and that’s more embarrassing for y’all than me. trust me i can make it really embarrassing for y’all i practice) so i say leave the gendered bathrooms. or two nongendered bathrooms but people being so awkward they self-segregate. this is pure self-interest tho

      • kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yeah and honestly I’m a woman but I’m going to use urinals as long as I’m still able, convenient af and hilarious every time to lift your skirt to use a urinal

      • thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        yes

        obviously there would be the same number overall

        availability would actually be higher as there would be twice as many available to the individual

        • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I can see places cheaping out and just having one bathroom for both that’s the size of just one of them, but it would be a small price to pay to get rid of this terrorizing of trans people…or just anyone who doesn’t appear to fit into specific gender roles.

    • Mister_Hangman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Shut the fuck up, regard. If we did that how the hell would we be able to attack this easy target of vulnerable people?!

    • jefferyjefferson@lemmy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The real reason? Because men can’t control themselves and women have reasons to fear for their safety in closed spaces with them.

      • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Men are entirely capable of controlling themselves, I can attest to that personally.

        Your’s isn’t an argument, it’s the confession of a predator.

        • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Next time, maybe duck. Because holy shit that went right over your head.

          You’re the “not all men” type, eh?

          • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            12 minutes ago

            No, every single man is capable of controlling themselves, you’re just a psychopath.

            Edit: Why should I have ducked if it had already been going over my head? Also, it’s hilarious that you of all people would try to use “I was just joking” as a reply, considering what I’ve seen from your other comments. Were you just joking when you were talking about how you want to censor trans folks out of existence?

            Also, you’re into prediction markets and crypto. You are a giant fucking red flag, holy shit.

      • Velma@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        There are gender neutral bathrooms all over the place.

        It’s a sexist idea that men can’t control themselves.