‘Bathroom Bills’ Beyond North Carolina: Here’s Where 10 Other States Stand on Public School Legislation
Over the past year, 16 states have followed in North Carolina’s footsteps by implementing restrictions on the use of restrooms by transgender individuals. However, many of these bills have failed to gain momentum, although lawmakers in Virginia and Tennessee were cautious due to the economic consequences faced by North Carolina after passing House Bill 2 in March of last year. Out of the 16 states, 10 still have pending bills, with some focused specifically on public schools rather than all public facilities.
Most of these bills, commonly referred to as "bathroom bills," aim to segregate restrooms, locker rooms, and other public spaces based on an individual’s sex assigned at birth. Some of these bills even go as far as superseding existing anti-discrimination policies. For example, in Kentucky, there is a proposed measure that allows students to sue their school district if they encounter individuals "of the opposite biological sex" in bathrooms designated for males or females.
While some advocates see this as the beginning of the end for these discriminatory laws, they emphasize the negative impact they have already had on school communities. Unlike the significant financial losses experienced during the unofficial boycott of sports and entertainment events in North Carolina, the effects on students are harder to measure.
To shed light on the subject, we have consulted two experts and compiled answers to common questions regarding this debate, as well as predictions for the future.
Where are these bills currently pending?
Bills are pending in 10 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington.
In which states have the bills stalled or failed?
Bills have stalled or failed in 6 states: South Dakota, Virginia, Wyoming, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky.
Is this the first time states have attempted to legislate transgender bathroom rights on such a large scale?
Yes, according to Eliza Byard, the executive director of GLSEN, a national organization advocating for LGBTQ-inclusive K-12 schools. Byard explains that this issue has recently become highly politicized, resulting in an exaggerated and irrational political response. She emphasizes the importance of protecting children from harmful actions fueled by external hysteria, allowing schools to continue their work without unnecessary interference.
Byard refers to a 2015 study conducted by Media Matters, which reveals that 13 states and the District of Columbia already had transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination policies in place.
What has changed in recent years, and how are students affected?
Transgender students gained protections through federal guidance implemented by the Obama administration in 2015. This led many students to seek protection from discrimination and harassment. However, resistance from external sources and the spread of misinformation have increased over time.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump removed these protections, claiming they lacked sufficient legal analysis. This removal, in addition to state and federal policies that aim to remove antidiscrimination protections, has caused significant harm to students’ physical and mental health. Students often avoid using bathrooms out of fear of ridicule, leading to avoidable health problems.
Additionally, some students face difficulties when teachers refuse to acknowledge their gender identity or use their preferred pronouns.
What happened in North Carolina?
In March 2016, North Carolina passed House Bill 2, which resulted in significant economic consequences for the state. Many prominent organizations boycotted the state, resulting in estimated losses of $200 million, which could rise even higher. The National Collegiate Athletic Association banned championship events in North Carolina, while musicians like Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam canceled concerts. Companies such as PayPal and Deutsche Bank halted planned expansions that would have created jobs in the state.
North Carolina’s legislation served as a test case, demonstrating the negative impact of such laws on other states. Almost a year after its passing, House Bill 2 was repealed and replaced on March 30. However, advocates were dissatisfied with the new measure, as it still allows for potential changes to bathroom regulations by state legislators and prevents cities and towns from passing their own ordinances until 2020. Many gay rights and civil rights organizations labeled it a "fake repeal."
In response to the six-month ban on championship events imposed by the NCAA, the governing body quickly lifted the ban. However, GLSEN’s Eliza Byard believes that the situation in North Carolina is a double-edged sword.
Byard expressed her disappointment with the fact that rights are only respected when it comes to economic interests. She finds it disheartening that it takes an economic argument to prioritize respecting people’s rights. However, she also sees a positive side in the fact that progressive corporations are willing to take a stand against politicians who negatively impact children.
Turning our attention to Texas, lawmakers recently engaged in a debate over their own version of the "bathroom bill." This bill would require schools, universities, and government buildings to limit the use of multi-user restrooms and changing facilities based on the sex indicated on a person’s birth certificate, as reported by the National Conference of State Legislatures. The measure passed the Senate with a 21-10 vote and has been sent to the House. However, there is a lack of enthusiasm among House leaders and some argue that it is not a priority.
Should states like Texas ultimately fail to pass a law regarding this issue, what are the potential consequences for schools? According to Jones, there would still be a "chilling effect." The fact that the bill has made progress in the Senate and is on the radar has already had an impact on school administrators who now feel hesitant about making restroom and locker room accommodations. Additionally, any previous accommodations made for students are likely to spark controversy among the parents of other students, community members, and local and state representatives, potentially creating political disputes.
Byard adds that while this issue may not arise in every school, the consequences for students in need of proper restroom facilities and respect for their rights can be dire when they are denied.
