Trans bathroom ban with yearlong jail penalty approved by Idaho House would be among strictest in nation

A bill criminalizing “willfully” entering a public bathroom of the opposite biological sex passed the Idaho House Wednesday.

If the bill is approved by the state Senate and signed by the governor, it would represent one of the strongest restrictions on transgender people in the country.

The bill prohibits someone “knowingly and willingly” entering a public bathroom or changing room that is not reserved for the individual’s “biological sex.”

Exceptions to the law include workers cleaning the bathroom, those assisting a young or disabled family member, those providing medical assistance and those providing coaching during an athletic event.

Someone convicted under the law could face up to a year in jail. Upon a second offense, the charge would become a felony and carry a five-year prison sentence.

Other transgender bathroom bans across the country target businesses, rather than the individual who uses the bathroom, making Idaho’s would-be law one of the strictest of its kind in the nation.

A Florida misdemeanor is punishable by up to 60 days in jail, and a Kansas law authorizes anyone to sue someone they suspect of being transgender for using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. The proposed Idaho law would be the first bathroom ban to include a felony penalty.

The bill was approved by Idaho House republicans in a 54-15 vote. Six Republicans joined the state’s nine Democrats in opposition.

“It comes down to this. When you get the dude in a dress going into the locker room or the shower with your 16-year-old daughter, that’s never OK,” Rep. Ted Hill, R-Eagle, said before the vote.

Republican Rep. Dale Hawkins, R-Fernwood, implied he would physically assault someone he believes to be biologically male who followed his daughter into one of the spaces protected by the bill.

“If someone followed my daughter into a shower room, my family would have to come visit me somewhere. Because I wouldn’t be waiting for police,” Hawkins said.

“It’s really simple. We either are a moral society, or we are not,” he added.

Other GOP legislators argued the bill is unnecessary.

“To tell you the truth, I don’t know if there are many people who are sexually aroused by watching someone go the bathroom. The idea that we need to be able to prosecute someone who is in a bathroom makes no sense at all,” said Republican Rep. Clay Handy, R-Burley.

Both the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and Idaho Chiefs of Police Association oppose the bill because determining someone’s biological sex would be difficult for law enforcement called to the scene of an incident.

“House Bill 752 would place an unrealistic and absurd burden on Idaho law enforcement officers to somehow know or be ready be able to readily identify visually the biological sex of another human being with the existence of a lawful remedy,” said Moscow, Idaho, police Chief Anthony Dahlinger during committee debate on the bill.

Asked how biological sex would be determined during an arrest, bill sponsor Cornel Rasor, R-Sagle, said that would be determined by the pieces of identification the suspect carried.

Dahlinger said such an expectation would be “unrealistic” because Idaho allows transgender people to change their sex designation on identification documents.

The law enforcement agencies requested that the bill be amended to allow suspects to leave the bathroom when asked to avoid arrest.

Several Republicans on the chamber said such a provision would place too great a burden on the other people in the bathroom.

“Our current indecent exposure statute does not require the victim to ask the person to put their clothes back on or to leave the room. We should not be targeting the victim with some sort of responsibility when a law has been breached,” Rasor said.

Democratic Rep. Chris Mathias, D-Boise, said the bill would “criminalize fear instead of actual harm.”

“Forcing people who don’t look like the sex that they were born as or forcing transgender to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger. It’s obviously going to put them in danger – verbal assault, physical assault, sexual assault. There’s no evidence that allowing transgender people to use bathrooms causes harm to me,” Mathias said.

During committee debate on the bill, several transgender people said they would be prevented from being in public for long periods of time should the bill pass.

Transgender man Nikson Matthews was born biologically female but since his transition has a beard and low voice. He would not feel comfortable using the women’s restroom, he said.

“Let’s talk about what this bill forces me to do. It forces me to use a women’s bathroom. Say I happen to walk behind a woman and her husband sees someone who looks like me following his wife into the bathroom. What do you think happens next? Maybe the cops get called, but more likely that man is going to follow me into the bathroom, confront me and even assault me,” he said.

Several residents of Sandpoint cited a local incident in their arguments in favor of the bill. Last year, a transgender individual who was allegedly biologically male used the women’s changing room at the local YMCA.

“I am a survivor of sexual assault, and last year, when I encountered a man in the women’s locker room, it caused me severe psychological harm. In addition, it forced me back into counseling, and it cost me a job that I once loved. I have also endured public shaming for simply speaking about these experiences,” Sandpoint resident and former YMCA lifeguard Jennifer Hook said in committee debate over the bill.

The proposed legislation was “not about hate,” but “honoring dignity and safety and recognizing the reality of trauma,” she said.