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.

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

If the authorities classified it as the sexual voyeurism is so often clearly is, then the sentence in England & Wales is up to two years, and being on the Sex Offenders’ Register.

Some of these blokes film themselves perving and put in on social media ffs. But they call themselves Molly Molly Mandy so that’s ok then apparently.

It would have made more sense for them to campaign for third/fourth space options 10 years ago. Now the US is caught between the left (must use women's facilities) and the right (use the men's or go to jail). Perhaps a belated campaign for third spaces might be in order?

As is often said on here: it isn't about the space, it is about the women in the space.

And one party that criminalises anyone for performing removal of a dead foetus from a woman's womb, and one that doesn't

Bravo Idaho

ive 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
sorry @hahabahbag which are they using? Women’s or third space?

While simply being a man in a female-designated single sex spaces appears not to be an offence in the UK, behaving in a way likely to cause fear or distress, or obstructing the 'enjoyment' of the space as designated may well be offences under public nuisance laws etc.

As TheAutumnCrow says, if there is a sexual motivation, it is covered by specific legislation.

The question 'Is it illegal for men to use the women's toilet [in the UK]?' has been asked several times , and the answers range from 'No.' to 'No but maybe' Clarification about the application of Public Nuisance and other laws would be useful.

Security staff/the police would be helped by this clarification, because if they were called to a women's toilet and found a man not just being there, but causing a disturbance by refusing to leave, filming, being aggressive, being confrontative - it should be clear to law enforcement that he is no longer 'just being' in a sex-segregated women's space, about which the laws seems to be unclear, he is causing a public nuisance, which is a specific, defined offence.

The other party had been in positions of power to enact laws to protect women though right? And they chose not to in order to use that as a carrot every election so maybe ask them why they never seem bothered about it when they have the opportunity to sort it.

But it still doesn't make it ok to let pervy boundary invading men into womens toilets.

Exactly. Some men have always wanted to invade women’s toilets and changing rooms, but until recently they rarely dared to, because it was unacceptable.

I’d rather we returned to that simple everyday courtesy of acknowledging other people’s human rights. But if men refuse this simple request, I’d be fine with offenders being jailed to show the rest that it’s not worth the thrill of offending.

Sadly, cos some men can't stop themselves, the law needs to be escalated. It's the right decision.

Idaho Governor Brad Little signed the bill into law yesterday, on Transgender Day of Visibility

"Gov. Brad Little has signed the Legislature’s anti-transgender bathroom bill into law, making it a crime to use a restroom or changing room that doesn’t align with a person’s sex at birth. The law, which will apply to government-owned buildings and places of public accommodation, makes it a misdemeanor if someone “knowingly and willfully” uses such a restroom. A second offense within five years would come with a felony charge and up to five years in prison.

Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article315257130.html#storylink=cpy"

(In the US, bills passed by the legislature don't become law until the governor/president signs them or the legislature overrides the governor's veto.)

For @MarieDeGournay and others interested in US laws

This is a video from the 1970s explaining how a bill becomes law to kids. It works the same in each state (except Nebraska has a unicameral legislature so it only needs to pass one house).

And you think a year in prison is about right do you? I think it's extreme and the politics behind it are sinister. A fine would seem a more reasonable penalty.

Or maybe males can just use the correct sex facility? @Hallamule so your belief is, “if you have enough money to pay the fine, do what you want?”
so a wealthy voyeuristic AGP can go and loiter in female toilets, intimidate people, but hey he can afford the fine, so all good?
it’s bonkers all these “oh that’s so unfair on the men choosing to enter women’s single sex facilities!” As if they are being forced to go in and it’s not their own volition!!

Is it the sentence a mandatory year in prison or is it up to a year in prison? There are plenty of offences in the UK where a court will routinely issue a fine even if the maximum sentence is one of imprisonment.

From the article in the OP:

'Violating the law would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison. A second offense within five years would be a felony, carrying up to a five-year prison sentence.'

It clearly says 'up to'.

I believe that the classification of crimes as misdemeanours and felonies will be well understood by all Americans and the implications of these.

There is often, in the UK debate, a failure to recognise that the law covers toilet provision (by companies, schools etc.) and not toilet use (by individuals). A person is not themselves breaking any laws just by using the opposite sex toilet. It's not clear to what extent toilet providers are expected to enforce single-sex use. (One would suspect that just puttinh up a sign and leave it at that is not going far enough, but at the other extreme providers are not expected to have someone constantly on the door to physically block anyone from the opposite sex ever going in.)

There would I think be advantages to the law being able to penalise individuals, though I think you'd need to be very very careful. Are we saying a woman who crosses the threshold of the men's toilets by accident, and immediately leaves, should be regarded as having committed a criminal offence?

I'm actually on the fence about this. I am very fear in my belief people should use toilets of their sex (which obviously cannot be changed 🙄), but equally there are exceptional circumstances that arise sometimes, which make me reluctant to criminalist it.

If the ladies toilet is broken (or men's), I'd rather someone knock, and all is they can use the toilet, rather than potentially wet themselves/make themselves ill. If a dad is taking his 3yo to the loo and the men's are broken, she may not be able to wait, and is too young to go on by herself.

Similarly if the disabled toilet is out of action, someone might bring a carer into the regular toilets, or the carer might need to bring the person they are caring into the toilets with them.

Then there's things like intervals and shows, where the women's queue is far longer, there's a limited time to get through everyone, and sometimes when the men's queue is done, the women use both. I've seen that happen a few times.

None of this means it's on for trans people to use whichever loo they fancy! I just think criminalising it gets rid of wiggle room where it's needed.

That's a matter of making sure you have all the desired exceptions in the law. This one has several exceptions:

The bill carves out a number of exceptions, including for people providing medical assistance or helping law enforcement. It also allows people to use restrooms that don’t match their sex assigned at birth if it is a single-user facility and is the only option available; if a person is in “dire need” and it is the only option reasonably available; or if a parent or guardian is assisting a child or family member.

Read more at: www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article315257130.html#storylink=cpy

Thank you for posting the exceptions.

It wasn't something needed when there wasn't a group men absolutely determined to get into women's spaces, who are apparently incapable of considering or respecting anyone else's needs or rights. (Hm. More evidence that this group wasn't 'always there'). And wish to be in there posing with swords, peeing and wanking with doors open, excluding women who cannot use mixed sex spaces, pushing wet tampons up bums etc etc.

I can see it may become needed. And cannot imagine the legal system being unable to distinguish between a man who has gone for example to help with a crisis, and a man shouting about how he's a woman.

And how many fines? 5? 11? 37? We are talking about males entering female spaces where women and girls are vulnerable. Not less than 20 years ago, these men would be charged with Indecent Exposure or Voyeurism.

What I want to ask you, is what if these men keep getting these fines, how many is enough to warrant jail time if they keep paying the fines and laughing and keeping entering female only spaces?

I know a year sounds harsh. I know that. But what would you suggest if these men keep laughing and paying these fines and re-entering these spaces?

I'm sure indecent exposure, harassment, etc are still illegal in Idaho.

Up to a year in prison over a bathroom is kinda wild, not gonna lie… like yeah laws exist for safety, but this feels more like politics flexing than solving anything real. People just wanna pee and leave, nobody’s plotting a heist in there lol. Feels like this is gonna create more awkward situations than it fixes.

Unfortunately, Katie Dolatowski didn't just 'pee and leave' when he was in the supermarket ladies' toilets.