Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LaurenLevine731.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The introduction does not describe the subject from a neutral point-of-view. Change "transgender people" to "transgender individuals". Change "public bathrooms" to "public facilities". "corresponds to their gender identity (as opposed to the sex they were assigned at birth)" is needlessly wordy and confusing. A possible change would be "...that would prohibit transgender individuals from using public facilities corresponding to their gender identity. Those who are most personally affected by bathroom bills - transgender individuals - are widely opposed to this type of legislation and feel they represent a violation of civil rights. Proponents of bathroom bills tout the potential for violence in public spaces if, for instance, a man were to dress as a woman and enter a women's restroom. However, there is no evidence that would suggest such a crime has ever taken place, and there are cases of false reports leading to media attention. There is also little proof that would support the notion that transgender individuals, by their mere existence, would spark the creativity of a mastermind criminal to crossdress to enter private spaces. In most cases public spaces affected by the bills are not guarded by police all the time and thus the potential for crime is already at a maximum capacity. This is a fact whether or not a transgender individual is anywhere near the vicinity. Therefore, say opponents, penalizing transgender individuals for merely being transgender is not the answer to a problem that does not and will never exist."

Okay, fair response, this is too wordy and uses some odd expressions. Do a rewrite on it. Let me know. We need to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetWand (talk • contribs) 11:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is awfully new and very short, so it definitely needs to be edited a lot. The lead section is indeed way too short and confusing. I'll try to improve it a bit based on the source we got (see if it states that the concept of a bathroom bill does extend towards public facilities in general), and "individuals" is probably an improvement. Feel free to expand the article based on reliable sources: there is more than enough out there on the topic. There's a lot to delve into as many politicians are using flawed logic and such while dealing with these laws. I think it's important that this article is done well, though as I'm not a United States citizen, my knowledge on the topic may be limited.
Question: what neutral-point-of-view issues does the lead section currently have? All it says is "this kind of bill bans transgender people from using bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity." The sentence is a bit confusing, but doesn't seem POV? ~Mable (chat) 13:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Globalize[edit]

@Jax 0677: "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States ..." – does this issue make sense in the context of the article? I was under the impression that this was specifically a United States topic. If we are meaning to globalize this article, a title change may even be in order, as I do not know if the term "bathroom bill" even makes sense globally. Seeing as a Canadian section is present, perhaps the lead should say "In North America, a bathroom bill is a bill ..."? ~Mable (chat) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Governors' statements[edit]

A recent edit of mine has been reverted, re-adding various statements made by various state leaders. Many of these quotes give various opinions on gender-neutral bathrooms instead of the article's main subject. Thus, I think their inclusion is tangential to the article and more appropriate for Wikiquote. FallingGravity (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what would be the best place to include all this info, but simply listing the opinion of various politicians without context is useless. There isn't much of a point to it. This is especially true in the case of this article, titled "Bathroom bill". Are these politicians planning to file such a bill? If not, then there probably isn't much of a reason to put their opinions in here. I'm sure many of these states have liberal politicians saying that bathroom bills are horrible. We can't list every notable person's opinion on this topic. ~Mable (chat) 17:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Are these politicians planning to file such a bill?" Well, Asa Hutchinson "said schools should disregard the [Obama's Justice Department] directive."States dig in against directive on transgender bathroom use --74.190.107.171 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, that might be worth mentioning. Let's keep this article focused on actual (possible) legislation rather than random politician opinions. I have seen dozens of random celebrity opinions on this topic as well (I'm pretty sure some of them even skipped North Carolina on their music tour because of the bill), but we don't list all of them either. WikiQuote may be a perfect place for this content, and it would allow all the notable opinions on the topic. ~Mable (chat) 07:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An entertainer like Bruce Springsteen doesn't have the level of influence as a U.S. governor who I think can appoints Superior court judges and many other public officials in a state. Bills have the potential to become laws and be enforced. Governors like Matt Bevin are digging in and thumbing their noses at those politicians who want to end gender discrimination in restrooms.--74.190.107.171 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)--74.190.107.171 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just saying that listing politicians who may file a bill in the future is just as useful as listing politicians who would oppose to such a bill. The way it's described is probably better for WikiQuote. Moreover, I wouldn't underestimate the amount of influence a famous musician can have on voters. Matt Bevin calling gender-neutral bahrooms "absurd" seems a lot less relevant to this article than Bruce Springsteen going taking part in a form of activism. (though I don't think either should be on here) ~Mable (chat) 19:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title[edit]

Shouldn't this WP entry have a neutral title along the lines of Transgender rights legislation in the United States? The term "bathroom bill" is a term of opprobrium used to denigrate legislation that attempts to define those rights, whether enlarging or restricting them. The Canadian material could have its own WP article. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "bathroom bill" has been widely used in the media (at least in the USA) to describe this kind of legislation. Even if the term is offensive to some, it makes sense to me to include it on that basis. Even if the title is ultimately changed, the term should remain as a redirect. Funcrunch (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it should be a redirect. I didn't ask about "including" the term. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. I just think a title like the one you suggested is too broad, because this article is about legislation to regulate access to restrooms specifically (though some bills also cover other gendered facilities like locker rooms). Funcrunch (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like how the proposed title feels more specific, but I think that WP:COMMONNAME wins out here: "Bathroom bill" is simply a very popular term for this general concept. I'd rather have a separate article for very specific instances of regulation (such as, for example, North Carolina)(you know, if it didn't fit so easily in this short article) than to change the name of this article. ~Mable (chat) 04:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assignment at birth versus birth certificate[edit]

I changed "sex they were assigned at birth" to "sex listed on their birth certificate". A key difference is that in some cases it is possible to obtain a modified birth certificate. For example, for people born in North Carolina (which is a hotspot for the topic), a modified birth certificate can be obtained after sex reassignment surgery. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do bathroom bills always use the birth certificate for the "final verdict"? ~Mable (chat) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently not, in the case of South Dakota House Bill 1008, so we may need to account for either possibility. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Restrictive vs. expanding[edit]

I think the article would benefit from a clearer definition of each state's bills, but don't know how to do it neutrally. The intro defines bathroom bill in neutral terms, but the list of bathroom bills by state doesn't specify if each bill is restrictive of rights (from a transgender perspective) or not. The term "restrictive" is how I would describe bills that restrict the ability of trans folks to use the bathroom of their choice, but I suspect people from the other side of the debate would see it differently. Is there a neutral way of describing these bills? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.84.96 (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit-a-thon work[edit]

Hi everyone! I will be working on this article as part of the QRC Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon 2017! I hope to flesh out some of the information missing from some of the states listed in the article as well as bringing in more scholarly sources to support the information presented in the article. Let me know if you have any feedback! Brookeenglish (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming[edit]

I was thinking the article should be named bathroom bill in the United States. Cwater1 (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map of US States is inaccurate in regard to Tennessee[edit]

The legislation that was passed in Tennessee in 2019 did not criminalize the mere act of a transgender person entering a bathroom contrary to their sex as assigned at birth. The "source" that was cited actually says quite clearly that this provision was removed from the legislation that was ultimately passed.

Instead, the legislation that was enacted essentially revised the existing indecent exposure laws such that they now include acts committed in a single-sex restroom or locker room by a member of the opposite sex as assigned at birth. Prior to this legislation, it appears to have been the case that indecent exposure laws did not apply in restrooms or locker rooms (presumably since exposing oneself to some extent in these settings is routine and functional rather than obscene).

Now, depending on interpretation, the legislation might very well make it illegal for a transgender person to actually undress in a locker room (which of course is one of the main reasons for entering one in the first place). So I'm certainly not denying that the legislation in question did indeed cause significant harm to transgender rights in the state of Tennessee. But what was actually passed was not as extreme as what the map indicates.


I wanted to provide a little background on the Tennessee edit.
I believe the text of the law supports the interpretation that only changing clothes, not simply going to the bathroom, is indecent exposure in Tennessee.
When defining incident exposure, the text (https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/111/Bill/HB1151.pdf) states:
(ii) In a restroom, locker room, dressing room, or shower, any of which are designated for single-sex, multi-person use, and the person is a member of the opposite sex than the sex designated for use: (a) Intentionally: (1) Exposes the person's genitals or buttocks to another; or (2) Engages in sexual contact or sexual penetration as defined in § 39-13-501; and (b) Reasonably expects that the acts will be viewed by another and the acts: (1) Will offend an ordinary viewer; or (2) Are for the purpose of sexual arousal and gratification of the defendant;
Certainly simply using the bathroom is not criminalized under this law as one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall.
I believe my edit should be restored 216.194.103.237 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alrighty. Looking into this further, it seems that an earlier version of HB1151 proposed criminalisation of trans people for the mere act of entering the restroom of their gender, however that was watered down prior to the passing of the bill.
When looking at the proposed edit though, I'm not sure if "changing clothes in the locker room" fully covers the extent of the law, nor follows the scope of the article with regards to its focus on bathroom bills in particular. Is there another way to phrase this that fits along the lines of the article's scope? The text of HB1151 does state that it applies in a restroom, which is synonymous with bathroom. Perhaps something like State classifies transgender people intentionally exposing themselves in the restroom of their gender identity as "indecent exposure", which is a misdemeanour under state law? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.s. there's probably an Engvar issue somewhere in that proposal that I can't spot, I'm from the UK so don't use American spellings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and put in my last proposed phrasing as it is at least more accurate than what's currently there. Fastidiously (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello (now from a real account!)! While I agree that "changing clothes in the locker room" does not cover the full scope of the law (as the law also covers, for example, flashing someone in a bathroom), it covers the relevant part of the law. Normal indecent exposure laws aren't bathroom bills because they don't make it illegal for trans people to use public facilities. I think the sentence needs to discuss the difference between this law and a normal indecent exposure law. I dislike the phrase "intentional exposure" because it's not clear that the phrase would cover normal locker room activities such as bathing or changing clothes. What about "State law may be construed to prevent trans people from undressing in locker rooms." That would make it clear that it's not tested case law and it would also put the emphasis on undressing, which is a normal activity in a locker room that one would do for showering or changing clothes. Fastidiously (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recently updated the map and attempted to incorporate this suggestion. For reference, the legend now reads "State indecent exposure law may be construed to criminalize trans people from undressing in locker rooms or using restrooms that do not match their biological sex," in anticipation of other states potentially passing similar legislation (ugh). The "or" that ties the two clauses should be interpreted disjunctively. Kjwilber (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for your update! I went in and added the word "explicitly" to the one about prohibiting discrimination, as most laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity are legally interpreted to allow people to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. Fastidiously (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legislative overview table[edit]

Given the rapidly changing legislative landscape, I'm drafting a table of currently-advancing bathroom bills in User:kjwilber/sandbox. I still need to consider the other US states, but I intend to copy my table into the article when it is somewhat complete.

I'd also like to update the map to include recent deliberations. Kjwilber (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This work is now roughly complete. If there aren't any objections, I'll continue to occasionally monitor relevant legislation and update as necessary in the coming months. Others should certainly feel free to contribute as well -- the source code that generates the map is posted on the Commons page of the map figure. Kjwilber (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV map[edit]

This map fails NPOV because it portrays states that have restrictive bathroom legislation in a negative light (by painting them red) and liberal states as good (by painting them green). I believe it would be fine to use these colors to talk about non-contentious topics, such as using the color red to indicate that an actor did not win a certain award, but for political topics like this I believe that is inappropriate. Maybe remaking this map with more neutral colors (such as blue vs brown) would be a good idea. SparklyNights (t) 01:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering the typical division in red states and blue states, what makes you think that either red or blue are "neutral colors"? Dimadick (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories