New Idaho law criminalising cross sex toileting.

[Shedmistress]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/27/us/idaho-transgender-bathroom-law.html

Someone on here was asking 'but is it illegal if a man uses a female toilet?', I can't remember which thread.

Well, it will be now in Idaho. Up to a year in prison.

There's a quick one liner in here somewhere, it's too early for me to make it right now.

From one extreme to another, I wonder if the political pendulum will eventual end up in the middle, or are we all doomed to suffer the excesses of far left and far right for ever. 😕

Why is it 'extreme' to have a punishment for breaking a law?

Otherwise there's no point in laws, surely?

Good work Idaho.

I was referring more to the political party who pushed it through, the article you link to was very informative, it seem to me that the Republicans in Idaho are the opposite extreme end and are more motivated by their own religious ideology than any concerns for the safety of women and children.

I also think threatening people with a year in prison for using the wrong toilet a bit on the extreme side.

There are only 2 political sides in the USA. One encourages men invading women's boundaries and one trying to stop it.

Not sure what your solution is?

also think threatening people with a year in prison for using the wrong toilet a bit on the extreme side.
imagine there was the option of not forcing yourself into the opposite sex toilets?!

Not sure what your solution is?

I don't have one because I'm not from the USA, I was passing a comment on an article you link to. The outcome might be desirable but the motives seem questionable. I was just reading an article about a creep in Aus, where a prison sentence most definitely should have been the outcome.

Not a 'trans' but definitely a perv. Melbourne's Justice Problem

Archive version of the article in the OP: https://archive.ph/6SgB4

Legislation like this seems performative (and could possibly stem from actual transphobia rather than the not-actually-transphobia-at-all kind), and in the UK I can't at all see why it would be helpful.
Now that it has been clarified that it is legal to have single-sex toilets (and that it may be discriminatory against women not to), I think we are fine with the status quo that persisted until trans activism sought to disrupt it.

That status quo is supported by two things:

Firstly, now that toilet providers can be confident that they are acting legally from the point of view of equality law, they can take action where needed. As I understand it, if you break the Ts&Cs associated with your right to (e.g.) enter a shop, use a gym, etc. you can, under civil law, be required to leave the premises, and, where applicable, have your membership terminated.

And second, now that the law is clear, I'm guessing that the kind of activism that encouraged men to violate single-sex toilets will begin to die down, and we will return to the only real plausible and sustainable means for enforcing single-sex toilets - namely, public understanding and a general acceptance of a need to follow the rules.

Any claim that more draconian enforcement is needed just plays into the TRA narrative that single-sex spaces are somehow terribly difficult, complex and unusual things.

How is it transphobic to enforce the law?

What do you mean? The idaho thing is a new law, not the enforcement of an existing one. I guess my feeling is that, because the law is likely unnecessary, it is performative and possibly motivated by polemics rather than pragmatics

I think “well done Idaho”.

if the cross dressers hadn’t pushed their agenda so aggressively and unreasonably we wouldn’t be here

It's not fair to say it's only pwrformative. Prisons in the USA are profit making businesses and a lot of political decisions seem motivated by a desire to help them make profits. So it will help with that. It will also of course cost the Idaho taxpayers 10s of thousands to imprison someone for a year.

I'm glad we had acts like the Equalities Act in the UK and determined women (and men) from across the political spectrum willing to fight for single sex spaces and women's rights more generally. But people in America seem more unwilling to support employment/women's rights and more happy with the incarceration for profit system. So I guess this solution works for them. So good for them.

So we should let men do what they want just in case the motives are upsetting to someone in another country?

It is a new law with the enforcement conditions attached to it.

Crikey, a legislature that thinks things through, whatever next?

If only people could be understanding of each other and larger businesses provide a third option (and not just the disabled toilet) we wouldn’t be here. In the real world I inhabit I’ve not actually had an issue with trans women using the ladies toilets because they (and there are many around these parts) use the third space that all our public spaces provide but that’s to the detriment of those who need the disabled toilet come baby change unfortunately. The larger and more thoughtful places in the city centre provide unisex and separate toilets as well as a family room and a disabled toilet meaning everyone is catered for and I see this frequently but it’s a pretty liberal city

Even if they could design toilets that you call 'third spaces' this does not even scrape the surface of just allowing males to access spaces females get undressed in, and place cameras in them. Let alone clagging up cubicles that men rarely need, it is why urinals were invented to assist speedy toilet use for men. Or the lack of safety versus access under or over cubicles that women need in case of medical issues.

This is not a magic solution, it has a knock on effect for everyone.

Men have their own toilets, designed for them, and they need to start using them again.

This is great news! And it needs to be made the law all around the world.

Wtf? In what way is this 'extreme'? It's very fair.

I also think threatening people with a year in prison for using the wrong toilet a bit on the extreme side.

No, it's not. Not at all. This is about womens safety, privacy and dignity. A violation of that is very serious. We've had enough and we need to set a precedent and example. One year is fair.

No. You are really naive. If you think that it will 'die down' and males won't double down and give the finger to the law, you are gullible and naive. If there is no repercussion then males won't stop. There needs to be a deterrent to stop them. Jail time is the ONLY THING that will stop them.

You have not been paying attention at all. The law is more than necessary.

Because males WILL....NOT....STOP unless there is a consequence.

Third spaces is a great idea and one us feminists proposed around 10 years ago, but trans said no to it. They said it 'others' them, and will 'out' them. They refuse to use a third space. Its the females in the building, in the space that validate them, not the space themselves. If it doesn't have females, they aren't interested. If they accepted it this would have been over with 10 years ago.

This. The idea that they will go away with their tail between their legs now and start dutifully complying with the law is extremely wishful thinking, based on…..well, not any reality I’ve seen in the past 5 years.

You haven't had a issue but realise it's detrimental to others..........that's the issue then isn't it?