‘Restroom law’ battle is a fight over nothing
Laws on the books already address predator issue
The growing argument about restroom usage by transgenders — beginning last year with the campaign against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance; continuing with Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign for president; with the current federal lawsuit and business boycotts over North Carolina’s law; and the recent announcements that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wants a similar anti-trans restroom law in the 2017 Texas legislative session, and that he also wants the Fort Worth superintendent of schools to resign over the district’s bathroom usage policy — is a fight over nothing.
The restrooms in Texas are already protected by the Texas Penal Code and have been for many years.
As I understand the arguments made against transgender usage of restrooms, the anti-trans folks fear that a male sex predator who looks and acts like a man, but who wishes to call himself a transgender woman, and thereby hide under the purview of transgender antidiscrimination laws, will do so in order to enter the women’s restroom and go after little girls.
This was the sole and total crux of the ad campaign run on Houston television stations, wherein the narrator stated that HERO would protect sex predators, and the camera showed a man entering and trapping a little girl in a lockable stall in the women’s restroom. Radio stations ran much the same thing.
It was all a hoax, orchestrated out of loathing for transgender people. At that time, and even today, sections of the Texas Penal Code will punish that man and all sex predators like the man in the ad.
Consider a man pretending to be trans who enters the “wrong” restroom in order to expose himself. This man is in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 21.08 — Indecent Exposure — a Class B misdemeanor with punishment up to 180 days in county jail, plus a fine of up to $1,000.
Or consider the man pretending to be trans who enters the “wrong” restroom in order to masturbate. This
man is in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 21.07 — Public Lewdness —a Class A Misdemeanor with punishment up to one year in county jail, plus a fine of up to $2,000.
People also say they fear that a man pretending to be trans would enter the “wrong” restroom in order to be a peeping Tom. This person would be in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 21.16 — Voyeurism — which, when dealing with a child younger than 14 years, is a state jail felony, with punishment of up to two years in a state jail facility, and a fine of up to $10,000.
What about the man pretending to be trans who enters the “wrong” restroom in order to take pictures through the crack in the stall door or while standing on the seat in the next stall? That man is in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 21.15 — Invasive Video Recording — which is a state jail felony with punishment of up to two years in a state jail facility and a fine of up to $10,000.
Finally, let us consider the man pretending to be trans who enters the “wrong” restroom in order to do what the television ads portrayed last fall during the anti-HERO campaign: to trap a girl in a women’s restroom stall. That man is in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 20.01 and 20.02 — Unlawful Restraint (formerly False Imprisonment) — which, when dealing with a child younger than 14 years, is a state jail felony with punishment of up to two years in a state jail facility and a fine of up to $10,000.
During the entire antiHERO campaign last year, these state laws were in effect and functioning to protect our little girls, yet the sex-predator scenario was being falsely portrayed.
As to the recent U.S. Justice and Education Departments’ rules on transgender students, again, this should not be a problem. Any boy who decides to bring his mom’s wig, padded bra and skirt in his backpack, put them on and claim to be trans so he can enter the girl’s facilities is still subject — as a juvenile — to the same State Penal Code arrest for indecent exposure, masturbation, voyeurism and taking photos as is the adult.
And doesn’t North Carolina have its own state laws against indecent exposure, public lewdness and voyeurism?
Consider, too, our own “Houston Ordinance 28-20.” It has been on the books since 1968. It is called “Prohibition on Entering Restrooms of the Opposite Sex.” And it does just that. Not a single section of the HERO ordinance repealed 28-20 or superceded the above listed section of the Texas Penal Code. 28-20 says that you cannot enter the restroom marked for the opposite sex in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.
The punishment for 28-20, a Class C misdemeanor, can be arrest with probable overnight jail before posting bond plus a fine of up to $500. Not a lot, but enough for the police to haul the sex predator away while the Harris County district attorney’s office busily files for violations of the Texas Penal Code.The language of 28-20 is not a problem for transgenders who simply need to “go to the bathroom,” and are not doing so to “cause a disturbance.”
So, what is this fight all about? Could it be as simple as dislike of or disgust for transgendered people?
If the anti-trans folks get their way, exactly where would transwomen and transmen go to the bathroom? (Real trans folk use the restroom for that reason: to use the restroom. Not to prey on children.)
The antis want trans folks like me to use the restroom of my “birth sex” or “biological sex.” That poses its own problems.
Forty-some years ago, when I first transitioned from guy to gal, I did not pass very well as a gal. A few times, I tried to use the men’s room. I quickly realized why that’s a terrible idea. For one, the stall in the men’s room is usually broken or unlockable and is most often too soiled for a sit-down. For two, twice I barely escaped those restrooms without being physically assaulted. No, thanks!
I hope that someday our Houston Equal Rights Ordinance comes back up before City Council. As the entire anti campaign of 2015 was based on the restrooms hoax, the new HERO can be “substantially amended” by adding a section reading, “Houston Ordinance 28-20 ‘Prohibition on Entering Restrooms of the Opposite Sex’ remains in effect.” Those 14 words would be the substantial amendment.
I hope that pro-HERO groups will form organized teams to monitor each television and radio station. I hope those teams will record the actual ads run along with the dates and times.
If those or similar lies are rebroadcast, and those stations should now know that they are lies, rather than mere political talk, then when the campaign is over, win or lose, I hope those teams will submit their findings to the Federal Communications Commission and ask for revocation of each station’s broadcast license because they knowingly ran lies.
Frye has been an out, transgender woman and activist in Houston since 1976. In 1980, she led the successful repeal of Houston’s anti-crossdressing ordinance (28-42.4). In 2010, Ms. Frye became the first out, transgender judge in the nation. She has a local law firm with five other lawyers, and has been using the women’s restroom exclusively since 1976. This commentary first appeared in “Gray Matters” on HoustonChronicle.com.