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.

Remember Lennon aka
“Katie” was the true victim for handmaidens and TRAs… who was kindly offering to help the 10 yo girl by forcing himself into the toilet cubicle, and he was so upset when she was so mean to him by saying no, and then the mean dad who shouted at him….
this would have been the volte-face for many, especially with the SNP holding strong with the “no no ‘Katie’ is the vulnerable one… can’t go to prison… let’s put “her” in women’s refuges..”

I obviously need to have a struggle session or two.

No, males don't want to just 'pee and leave'. If they did, they wouldn't be entering the female toilets to begin with.

These males didn't just want to 'pee and leave'. Any male, regardless of his identity, has only nefarious reasons for being in a female only toilet. It is 100% never for innocent reasons.

https://x.com/listen2tish/status/2007959774604984591

Trans uk Reddit is full of men encouraging each other to keep using the women’s toilets. They’re going to keep doing it unless they have a very strong incentive not to.

It needs to be KINDA WILD to stop these men.

Great news. May more follow their lead.

You can't argue with someone living in a fantasy reality. All you can do is have water tight boundaries. Like a law. And consequences for breaking it.

I have managed to use the men's twice in my life, completely by accident.

Once at a new job where I was rushing and unfamiliar with the building, and once in a building which had the same layout on every single floor except one where the toilets were helpfully switched around.

I've also been a cleaner and have had to enter mens loos frequently to clean in my job.

I don't think I'm a raving criminal who deserves a year in prison personally, I've never even had so much as a parking ticket in my life, but opinions may vary.

Usually when a male cleaner is present in a women's facility they are obliged to leave a notice board outside alerting women to this fact.

I'm sure that it must have been a very unpleasant, and even threatening experience, for you as a woman to enter into a men's facility, especially one with urinals? Were you also expected to alert men to your presence, or take any precautions yourself?

What? No, not at all. Edit - you have amended your post while I was replying to add more after asking about being intimidated. No we didn't have signs out. No, we didn't take extra precautions.

When I was cleaning it was usually during activities or after hours to minimise disruption.

When I went in by accident I had no idea til I came out - one set had no urinals and the other set had them round the corner so not immediately visible when you entered.

The worst I felt was embarrassment and shock when I came out and surprised some poor guy, and realised where I was!

But but how mean to make things awkward for the poor space encroaching men…
That’s clearly the worst thing that’s happening!

You need to in Britain. It is accepted practice to alert users to the presence of an opposite sex cleaner.

I cannot imagine many women being very comfortable with marching into a men's toilet facility with urinals - without ensuring it was empty first.

Best Practices for Opposite-Sex Cleaning:

• Announcement and Signage: Staff should announce their presence before entering and place a temporary sign outside indicating that a cleaner of the opposite sex is in the room.
• Temporary Closure: Toilets should be closed to the public while being cleaned by a member of the opposite sex, or, if in a busy area, the cleaner should wait for a quiet period.
• Use of Identification: Utilizing clearly visible identification or "courtesy signs" (e.g., "Male Cleaner on Duty" / "Female Cleaner on Duty") helps users feel more secure.
• Uniforms: Staff should be wearing clear, recognizable work uniforms.
• Avoid Unnecessary Interaction: Staff should keep their presence brief, professional, and focus solely on cleaning tasks to avoid making users feel uncomfortable

Why These Practices Exist:

• Respecting Privacy: Women and men generally prefer single-sex privacy, and opposite-sex cleaners can disrupt that sense of privacy.
• Safety and Comfort: It prevents potentially awkward or distressing situations for users.
• Legal Compliance: The Sexual Discrimination Act 1975 allows for opposite-sex cleaners, but employers must maintain high professional standards to avoid complaints.

I would like to remind posters that this law does have exceptions written into it. They were posted upthread.

Please read them before making the claim that one of the things that is covered by the exceptions would result in (up to) a year in prison.

Thanks. It also has an exception for cleaners (i.e., "custodians" in the US).

"The bill does carve out several exceptions. Athletic coaches, people responding to emergencies, people supervising inmates, custodians, and people helping children who need bathroom assistance get a pass. So does someone who is “in dire need” of a bathroom, if the bathroom they use is the only one that is reasonably available at the time."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sweeping-idaho-bill-criminalize-transgender-bathroom-use-private-busin-rcna265271

"The bill does carve out several exceptions. Athletic coaches, people responding to emergencies, people supervising inmates, custodians, and people helping children who need bathroom assistance get a pass. So does someone who is “in dire need” of a bathroom, if the bathroom they use is the only one that is reasonably available at the time."

Seems sensible TBH.

The entire situation was an entirely predicatable reponse to the erosion of social norms that governed previously especially in a country as polarised as the US.

Well I didn't "march" in, I walked in.

Anyway, this is a derail from my point, which is that is hardly would seem sensible criminalising people who make a genuine mistake or who have a genuine reason to be in an opposite sex loo. I see some exceptions have been posted, but the accidental point still stands.

I disagree, the law is clearly intended for those who wilfully and purposefully use the incorrect loo for their sex. A genuinely accidental 'oops, I'm in the wrong loo' and the person leaves, is not the same thing.

This is why it's a poor and unworkable law.

Just as I could (and have!) accidentally used the men's, so too could a transwomen use the women's and claim it was an accidental "whoops I'm in the wrong loo".

The "dire need" clause also renders this unworkable. It's a free pass for anyone to run into any loo, claiming they had suddenly stomach cramps and were about to soil themselves.

But if you accidentally walk in you walk back out as soon as you realise and there is a provision that means if it's an emergency and no other bathroom avaible then that's fine - but if there were other options then they should have been used.

It honestly sounds like a law that more a deterrant - though no idea how it will be used in pratcise -but it sound like they want to catch the vouyers or people deliberately causing upset to others who may currently get round proscurtion with a well I'm trans defence. Plus if it's unworakable or unpopular the people of Idaho have democratic means to get it repleaed or ammended.

TBH it's the US and it's all political posturing everything seems polarised over there. Even so this was always going to be likely as push too hard and undermine long standing social expectations the push back will when it arrives always be more than the orginal situation.

That is why repeat offenders have been taken into account.

For me a third space was the answer not this. We have disabled cubicles in most toilets where I am that are divided on the basis of sex which require to have level access so there is space for people with physical disabilities.

A third gender neutral space or even spaces with disabled access and space to accommodate carers and that was open for all sexes would have been a better answer. This is very common where I am too in addition to disabled cubicles.

DS had to use a third space toilet well past other kids due to disability, sensory issues caused by ASD and we needed to be there too as carers and many, many people who are gender non conforming have ASD. It is arguable that for ASD the gender incongruity can be a symptom of their disability. A third space is appropriate to support them.

I should add that I don't think that a law like this should be needed. Good people will use the correct loos for their sex or unisex loos, whatever identity they do or do not have.

Unfortunately, we have men like India who brag about walking past unisex loos to specifically use the ladies' loos.

It is the India's of this world (the bloke, not the Country) that are the issue.

If transpeople had been happy with a third unisex space from the start then this would never have been a problem.

But the transwomen insisted on using women’s spaces, because validation.