Rating: Transsupportive, Erin in the Morning, October 6, 2023 (PDF archive) (HTML archive) (Take Action)
Action Recommendations
- Suggest/Improve an Action on the GenderMenace.net Action Portal!
Content Summary
Ohio Republican Says Bathroom Ban Has Nothing To Do With Trans People
In Ohio, a bill targeting restroom access for transgender individuals gained renewed traction, leading to a hearing on Thursday. House Bill 183, introduced in May, had previously been overshadowed as legislators predominantly directed their attention towards sports bans and prohibitions on gender-affirming care for trans youth. Notably, neither of these measures have been passed into law. However, following a year marked by an unprecedented wave of legislation aimed at restricting the rights of transgender individuals, certain Ohio legislators seem ready for another push. This effort goes beyond what most other states have attempted: If successful, Ohio would impose restrictions surpassing even those few states that have already enacted bans on transgender restroom usage with the passage of this legislation.
House Bill 183 is explicit in its provisions. Not only would it prevent transgender students in K-12 schools from using restrooms that align with their gender identity, but it also extends this restriction to transgender adults across all colleges and universities in the state. Remarkably, these stipulations would apply regardless of the gender reflected on an individual’s birth certificate, even if they’ve legally changed their gender. Instead, restroom use would be determined by the “biological sex” recorded on a birth certificate at or close to the time of birth, pointedly omitting those who have since made legal amendments to their certificates.
You can see both the biological sex definition in the bill as well as the prohibition on students in universities here:
Wednesday’s hearing on the bill proved to be heated. Only those supporting the bill were permitted to testify that day, in line with Ohio’s system of separating “proponent and opponent” testimonies. One notable moment was when a representative referenced a YMCA incident in Xenia, Ohio but omitted the crucial detail that the transgender individual involved was acquitted of public indecency. Representative Lear stood out with particularly derisive remarks towards trans people, suggesting that transgender restroom use is part of a “sexual revolution” that could “weaken laws against pornography, rape, and child molestation.” When pressed about the law’s enforcement and determining who is transgender, Representative Lear commented that “some people can and some people can’t.”
Ohio already has a glaring example that underscores the perils of policies like the one proposed in the bill. Last year, a transgender man in Ohio was physically assaulted in a women’s restroom. Prior to this, he had sought guidance from a campground owner about which restroom to use because of his transgender status. The campground owner advised him to use the women’s restroom in line with his “biological sex,” a term that was defined in a similar way to this bill. Inside, patrons mistakenly assumed he was a transgender woman and attacked him. If this bill is enacted, such alarming incidents could become more frequent, pushing transgender men and women into restrooms where they do not belong.
Later in the hearing, the committee’s chair, Representative Tom Young, asserted that the bill wasn’t related to transgender individuals, remarking, “This legislation doesn’t refer to anything with regards to state or federal law with regards to transgender.” This line of reasoning is becoming familiar in legislative settings, where proponents of bills that adversely impact trans individuals maintain that the legislation isn’t about them. A similar narrative emerged in Montana regarding the state’s drag ban. Despite multiple legislators stating on the House floor that the bill had nothing to do with transgender people, the law’s first target was, tellingly, a transgender woman.
Only 10 states have passed bathroom bans in the United States, all all but three of those states’ bans only apply to transgender youth in school settings. North Dakota’s bathroom ban applies to Universities. Florida and Kansas have total bathroom bans, though only Florida has an enforcement mechanism: criminal penalties of up to a year in prison.
You can see a map of states with bathroom bans here:
The bill is slated for a comprehensive hearing of opposing views on October 11th. If enacted, Ohio would join the ranks of states with more stringent restrictions on restroom access for transgender individuals, both young and old. While Ohio has refrained from enacting the most severe anti-trans laws, many will be watching closely to see if this stance shifts.
Leave a Reply