Talk:Bathroom bill

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Introduction

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)

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)

Globalize

@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 - @Maplestrip:, if this is how you feel, please feel free to revert. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure, I'll do so - I just wanted you input on how this topic could be globalized if possible. It would be interesting if there is an international side to this topic I didn't know about ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 19:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I tried to find information on other countries besides the US and Canada but the only one I found was a (biased) source about a NZ bill that said it would be called a bathroom bill "overseas". Nonetheless I could not find a source stating that this is only a term used in North America so I put in the current phrase. I think "in some countries" would be better unless there is a source for a more specific claim. Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I suppose that's fine. I don't think this aspect of the topic matters that much: the topic is most prominent in US news, so the article happens to discuss the topic as a United States-based topic. If foreign sources start to pop up – e.g. European countries start to think about establishing "bathroom bills" as well – the topic can always be expanding. I'm fine with the vaguer lead sentence, though: the content of the article itself shows that this is primarily an American topic anyway, even if this technically doesn't have to be the case. ~Mable (chat) 06:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Governors' statements

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Title

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)

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)

Of course it should be a redirect. I didn't ask about "including" the term. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Assignment at birth versus birth certificate

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)

Do bathroom bills always use the birth certificate for the "final verdict"? ~Mable (chat) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

Restrictive vs. expanding

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)

Edit-a-thon work

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)

Renaming

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

Map of US States is inaccurate in regard to Tennessee

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Legislative overview table

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)

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)

POV map

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)

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)

This may just be a case of "reality has a left-leaning bias". Barring a minority group of people from using public bathrooms is unequivocally bad. Would you have the samw objections with this color scheme on a map depicting human rights, for example? 98.116.173.242 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There needs to be a section on historical examples

Hi all

I don't know much about this topic but I know there is a long tradition of bathroom bills and related moral panics around different people using specific toilets, here is one example source. Please can someone who knows more about it please add some information in.

• https://www.vox.com/2015/12/30/10690802/bathrooms-equal-rights-lgbtq

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Updates for 2024

Effective dates for newly-passed bathroom bills not currently updated in Bathroom bill:

• Louisiana: June 6, 2024
• South Carolina: July 1, 2024

Please update the above list in place as new information becomes available.

Fabrickator (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

‘Disputed’ label in second paragraph

'disputed' - I know some people really don't like to hear this, but there have been DOZENS, if not HUNDREDS of documented cases across the Western World of predators using 'trans-friendly' legislation that accommodates public bathroom and changing room entry to commit voyeurism, assault and even rape. The information you've provided in the entire opening paragraph is lazy, at best and propaganda, at worst. If you like, I will attach well over 10 stories, scientific studies, and articles into this thread disputing what has been said. It's clear plenty are scared of being called transphobic or bigoted for reporting basic facts about what HAS and what COULD happen. There isn't a single scientific study available that suggests opening the doors of female bathrooms to ALL male-bodied people does NOT endanger women. If you are scared of writing the unbiased truth in case you get called transphobic, LEAVE. This isn't for you. Reading 'What Wikipedia is Not' might help you improve this article.

I presume I will get them, but I wouldn't like any ad hominem attacks in this thread, please - I detest bigotry in all its forms, but I also have a firm grip on reality. I look forward to productive conversation on the subject.

) Westdoggys (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"I will attach well over 10 stories" Anecdotal evidence are not actually reliable. Per the main article: "there are little or no safeguards against fabrication or inaccuracy". Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Consensus disruption

@Grayfell I do not appreciate your accusation of edit warring you left on my talk page, and your reverting of my latest edit is disruptive. We have been building consensus on this page if you had actually paid attention to the changes made. A source was identified as unreliable, so it was replaced with a reliable one. A summary of a source was identified as being inaccurate, so the summary was corrected. Please explain to me how this constitutes edit warring. I think the problem is with you, perhaps because you did not understand the edits being made. I give you an opportunity to explain your accusation. Archon785 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Your behavior was textbook edit warring. Consensus is built on talk pages and through discussion, not through ambiguous and disputable edit summaries. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

There was nothing ambiguous about anything. A source was challenged, and it was replaced. The way a source was summarized was challenged, so it was corrected. Again, I postulate that you did not comprehend the edits that were made. Archon785 (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not this is edit warring, you haven't made the case for why your inclusion of an incident belongs on this page. Your most recent edit does not make this case and certainly doesn't belong in the lead of this article. Funcrunch (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You're moving the goalposts. My edit was challenged due to the source being unreliable. Very well, I will replace it with a reliable one. My edit was then challenged because the summary did not accurately reflect the new source's contents. No problem, I will change the wording. And now, after correcting the mistakes that were pointed out, I am accused of edit warring and told I haven't made the case. Well, here we are and we can have that discussion, as long as I am no longer being accused in bad faith of edit warring. My position is not necessarily that the incident should be included, but rather it is entirely unwarranted to have this:

Additionally, studies have not identified documented cases of transgender individuals attacking cisgender individuals in public restrooms,

The two sources stating that are from 2016 and 2018. The situation has updated, and there are cases of transgender individuals attacking cisgender individuals in restrooms. Either remove the one sided claim that studies from 7 and 9 years ago says it has never happened, or incidents can be added to show that it has in fact happened. Archon785 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw the changes and read the source:

• Hirasuna, Susan (27 April 2023). "California high school brawl involving transgender student draws behavioral, safety concerns". FOX 11. Retrieved 14 November 2025.

Whether this is WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS or merely WP:FOXNEWS, it's a poor-quality source either way. Further, that sources doesn't mention bathroom bills at all, and the only mention of bathrooms specifically is a quote from another student who's allegations are passed-on without any context. This introduces WP:BLPCRIME issues and needs to be handled much more carefully. There was also editorializing language in the proposal, but this would all have to be rewritten from scratch based on much better and more relevant sources anyway.

Based on your comments and edit summaries, these edits were done WP:BACKWARDS to support a specific point of view. Instead of looking for any example which supports your position, look for reliable sources about this topic, and discuss how to neutrally summarize those sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can be so confused about WP:RS and have the audacity to accuse me of edit warring. Local Fox affiliates do NOT fall under WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS or WP:FOXNEWS. Please review what WP:NEWSORG is. I strongly recommend you review and understand policy before levying accusations against me or anyone else regarding bias or edit warring. Archon785 (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you review and understand policy... I have done that many times. I'm sure I've made mistakes in the past and will do so again, but I maintain that the source was poor in this context. My assessment of the source has nothing to do with whether or not this was edit warring. The connection between this incident and the topic of the article must be made by (better) sources, not by editors. If you have a better source, propose it here. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would read what I have written and understand my position before trying to move the goalposts again. I'm not trying to add a source to the article, I'm trying to discredit a terribly inaccurate source that should not be there. Here's a reliable source for a bathroom assault by a transgender student, and this person was convicted of it. This should fundamentally discredit your 2016 and 2019 sources that have the obsolete and now inaccurate claim that there have not been documented cases of transgender individuals attacking cisgender individuals in public restrooms.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/former-student-convicted-sexually-assaulting-two-girls-released-loudoun-county-judge Archon785 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere in that article does it say the student committing the assault was transgender. Funcrunch (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The first assault occurred in May 2021, when Heckel, wearing a skirt, assaulted a girl in the bathroom at Stone Bridge High School. The second assault took place at Broad Run High School in October 2021. Between these incidents, the Loudoun County School Board approved a policy allowing transgender students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. This decision led to heated school board meetings and placed Loudoun County in the national spotlight.

Have I sufficiently summarized the source for you, or do you want me to find an even smaller quote of it? Archon785 (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Your insulting comments aren't doing you any favors.

We cannot cite a source to say someone is trans if the source itself doesn't directly say they are trans, as that is a form of original research. Here is a better source from the AP for this specific incident: Teen placed on sex offender registry after school assaults. Per that source:

The case also became embroiled in debate over extending protections to transgender students in schools, amid allegations that the boy had been wearing a skirt when he assaulted his classmate at Stone Bridge. At trial, prosecutors presented evidence that the boy in part blamed that assault on the fact that he accidentally caught his knee-length skirt on his watch while locked in a bathroom stall with the girl, according to news reports. The boy’s sexuality or gender was not an issue in Thursday’s hearing.

This source indirectly ties this incident to bathroom bills, but not directly, and again, it doesn't say that this student was transgender. The source refers to him as a 'boy' and uses male pronouns, so it doesn't imply that he is trans. Neither source attempts to explain how this specific incident matters to this 'debate'.

You can probably find another incident if you dig, but that's not really going to help. The article needs sources which discuss the topic itself, not individual incidents. Calling this 'shifting the goalposts' doesn't matter. Wikipedia attempts to summarize what sources say, not what they imply. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It's shifting the goalposts because once again, I'm not trying to add a source, I want an inaccurate source removed.

Proponents of the bills argue that such legislation is necessary to maintain privacy, protect modesty held by most cisgender people, prevent voyeurism, assault, molestation, and rape, and ensure psychological comfort. Critics of the bills, including advocacy groups and researchers, argue that such legislation does not enhance safety for cisgender people and may increase risks for transgender and gender non-conforming cisgender people. Additionally, studies have not identified documented cases of transgender individuals attacking cisgender individuals in public restrooms

The bold part is the part I want removed from the article. The germane aspect of my source is to show yes, there have been documented cases of transgender people attacking cisgender people in public restrooms. I don't care whether the subject of my source is "still" transgender, but rather they were allowed into the girls' restroom due to a transgender inclusion policy, and a sexual assault occurred. This means you cannot say there are no identified documented cases of these kind of attacks. Archon785 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Your desire to remove that line is clear enough, but we still have to go by reliable sources. You have not addressed the WP:OR issue, and your interpretation of the source misrepresents several key details. Further, you have not proposed any sources which are usable for this purpose. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

So if a source says "this has never happened" and I provide a reliable source (Fox 11) that says it has in fact happened, then that's WP:OR?

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/591902-adult-charged-with-sexual-assault-of-a-child-sentenced-to/

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-27/26-year-old-who-sexually-assaulted-girl-while-underage-will-serve-two-year-term-in-juvenile-facility-judge-rules

There's are two sources that neatly checks all the boxes as being a reliable source, the perpetrator being clearly identified as transgender, the victim being cisgender, and the assault occurring in a Denny's bathroom which is a public restroom. So, there is a documented case of a transgender individual attacking a cisgender individual in a public restroom. Can the inaccurate source be removed now, or is there yet another problem with doing so? Archon785 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

There's no doubt that this sexual assault occurred, but the perpetrator, who was a juvenile, was not identifying as transgender at the time. i.e., this was not a case of a trans woman walking into a women's restroom and assaulting a cisgender girl. Funcrunch (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

In an attempt to put this issue to rest, I've edited the article to feature a 2025 Williams Institute study in the lead rather than the 2015 source for there not being any documented assaults of cis people by trans people in restrooms. I've kept the latter in the body of the article but added the 2015 date to the text body. Funcrunch (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with the new source cited and how it is summarized in the article. Thank you. Archon785 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Yup, looks good. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Changing Maps Underneath Section "United States" to Reflect Kansas Senate Bill 244

Hello there! I am a first time major editer, so if I'm doing something wrong please tell me!

I was looking at this article, and I noticed that the first two maps underneath the section "United States" do not properly reflect the state of Kansas after the passing of Senate Bill 244 in Febuary of 2026. Here is why:

• Firstly, underneath the bill, individuals may be charged with misdemeanor with jail time and/or fine. The bill would require those who violate the law to receive no penalty on first violation, but a penalty of $1,000 for a second violation. They could be charged with a misdemeanor crime on a third violation. The bill sets potentially large penalties for public agencies that don’t comply with the law, including fines of $25,000 for a first violation and $125,000 for a second violation.¹

I believe that, underneath this bill, the first map should have the state of Kansas' color to be changed to dark red, to comply with the attached key. The key states that a state with a dark red color has "Criminal penalties for individuals (misdemeanor with jail time and/or fine); administrative and civil penalties for covered facilities". I believe Kansas falls under this definition.

• Secondly, the map following the previous one should also be changed. The map defines areas where "State laws don't allow transgender people to use bathrooms or other public facilities that match their gender identity in any government-owned place—this includes public schools, colleges, and all other public buildings". Kansas Senate Bill 244 does these things. Underneath SB 244, it states, " Requiring the designation of multiple-occupancy private spaces in public buildings for use by only one sex and imposing criminal and civil penalties for violations, defining the term "gender" to mean biological sex at birth for purposes of statutory construction...".² The bill would also apply to "'multiple-occupancy private space,' which includes spaces like restrooms, hospital rooms, dorm rooms, domestic violence shelters, and more..."³ I believe this is justification for changing the color of Kansas to the dark red color in the key.

How do I go about this now? I will wait for a response before I do anything, but any tips/recommendations for how to procced would be greatly appreciated. Please Let me know if I formatted this suggestion correctly or not. Thank you!

My sources are here:

https://lawrencekstimes.com/2026/02/22/kr-ks-interpreting-sb-244/

https://legiscan.com/KS/text/SB244/2025

https://www.aclukansas.org/press-releases/advocacy-organizations-condemn-kansas-legislature-override-of-governor-veto-on-sb-244/ IEatSand9 (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to also mention that the tables and the section about Kansas would also need changed. The Kansas section mentions SB 244, but fails to mention that govener Laura Kelly's veto was overturned in Febuary 18th and the bill is now in place. I have a few ideas of how to properly change the table and Kansas section to reflect this that I will expand upon when need be. IEatSand9 (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do, this page is way out of date. I'm no expert at updating tables and maps, only text, which is why I haven't tackled it myself. Funcrunch (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try my best! IEatSand9 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)