In the week since Texas\u2019 new \u201cbathroom bill\u201d designed to target transgender people went into effect, some opponents of the restrictions have begun challenging both the spirit and letter of the law as questions remain on how it can be enforced.<\/p>\n
Senate Bill 8<\/a>, also known as the Texas Women\u2019s Privacy Act, restricts what public restrooms, locker rooms and other similar facilities transgender people can use in public buildings by determining access based on sex assigned at birth. The law does not mandate a policy, but requires that cities, counties and public agencies take \u201cevery reasonable step\u201d to ensure people do not enter restrooms not matching their sex assigned at birth.<\/p>\n Supporters of the law pushed for more than a\u00a0decade\u00a0to cement the sex-based restrictions SB 8 creates as a way of protecting women\u2019s private spaces. Opponents of the law, however, have\u00a0maintained\u00a0the lack of clear guidelines on how to uphold SB 8 will lead to uneven, ineffective and potentially invasive enforcement \u2014\u2014and on Dec. 6, a group of protesters went to the Texas Capitol to test that claim.<\/p>\n After initially being able to enter the restrooms matching their gender identity and giving a series of speeches in the Capitol rotunda, the protesters were barred from again entering the bathrooms by several Department of Public Safety officers. Some protesters attempting to enter the women\u2019s restroom were asked to show their IDs, which DPS said in a statement were voluntary checks to ensure compliance, but did not specify why those who did not show IDs were not allowed into the restroom.<\/p>\n DPS cited the State Preservation Board\u2019s public restroom\u00a0policy<\/a>, which was updated in February, and \u201cexpects\u201d visitors to use restrooms matching their \u201cbiological sex.\u201d The policy does not mention a required verification process. Officers ultimately let two trans women into the restroom after they shared their IDs, which had female markers, according to a video shared online by the 6W Project, a new advocacy group that organized the protest. Protesters also said the men\u2019s restrooms were not guarded by officers.<\/p>\n \u201cI think that the Texas government just established that they have no consistent enforceable standards for this law,\u201d said protester Matilda Miller after the demonstration.<\/p>\n Ry Vazquez, one of the founders of the 6W Project, was briefly detained by DPS during the protest, and given a criminal trespass warning along with three others. Vazquez, who herself is trans, said the lack of DPS officers at the men\u2019s room and the admittance of the two other trans women proved SB 8 could not be evenly enforced and poses a danger to anyone placed under scrutiny by officials.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat we did was not radical, it was not profound,\u201d Vazquez said. \u201cPeople use the restroom every day in a public setting, and for it to become what it is now, where it is now an active threat to someone who is not prepared, is utterly abysmal.\u201d<\/p>\n Vazquez and other opponents have said the law could encourage people to photograph or harass people in public restrooms, an issue that has preceded SB 8\u2019s implementation, including once at the state\u2019s Capitol. In 2023, Williamson County GOP Chair Michelle Evans posted a photo online of a transgender woman inside a Texas Capitol bathroom, leading to officers confiscating Evans\u2019 phone. Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza also launched an investigation into Evans to evaluate whether she had broken state law.<\/p>\n Evans sued Garza to block the investigation, claiming she was within her First Amendment rights to post the photo displaying the inside of the bathroom. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 9 ruled in Garza\u2019s favor, allowing the investigation to continue.<\/p>\n Those who enter the \u201cwrong\u201d restrooms are not individually punished by SB 8, however the law carries steep penalties for institutions where violations occur. The fines \u2014 $25,000 for the first instance and then $125,000 per day for every subsequent violation \u2014 are only imposed after complaints are filed with the institution and the Attorney General\u2019s office and an investigation is conducted. Individuals can also sue institutions for violations.<\/p>\n Cities and counties must also comply with SB 8\u2019s restrictions, but Austin City Council is hoping a new\u00a0resolution<\/a>\u00a0passed last Thursday will circumvent what they feel is an intentionally exclusionary law. The resolution kicks off a program from the city manager to help find ways to replace multi-occupancy restrooms affected by SB 8 with single-person restrooms. Council members said they hope the resolution will create a more welcoming environment for trans and gender-nonconforming Austinites.<\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t know if anyone else has done this,\u201d Austin City Council member Mike Siegel said. \u201cIn some ways, Texas is the testing ground for new discriminatory and hateful policies, and we\u2019re just responding as creatively as we can.\u201d<\/p>\n There are roughly 287 restroom facilities operated by the City of Austin, according to an October report from Austin Facilities Management, 72 of which currently have no single-occupancy restrooms. Siegel, who authored the resolution, said it\u2019s important to note that any renovations stemming from the program would not come out of the city\u2019s general fund, but from other sources like voter-approved bonds. A report on the program from the city manager is expected to be ready in March.<\/p>\n Despite the resolution\u2019s attempt to distance Austin from SB 8\u2019s intent, supporters of the new law also applauded the resolution, including Mary Elizabeth Castle, director of government relations for Texas Values, a conservative advocacy group. Texas Values has long advocated for bathroom bills in the state, and Castle said during Austin City Council testimony Thursday that the city\u2019s decision to align with the law is a step in the right direction.<\/p>\n \u201cYour resolution states that the city does not seek to invade the privacy of any individual or violate their civil rights,\u201d Castle said. \u201cThat\u2019s excellent news to hear, because every time a man is allowed to enter a female restroom or locker room, that is exactly what happens.\u201d<\/p>\n Amid the confusion on how to enforce the law, Texas Values also sent letters to several public agencies, cities and school districts encouraging them to adopt new policies to better help them comply with SB 8. Castle said Austin\u2019s resolution and Arlington\u2019s decision to\u00a0suspend\u00a0discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ residents<\/a> were the right steps to comply with the law.<\/p>\n Yet Austin City Council members acknowledged they hope the resolution is only a temporary solution for what they believe is an unconstitutional law that will eventually be overturned.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is very much likely an unconstitutional law. It is motivated by discriminatory animus,\u201d Siegel said during a press conference after the resolution was passed. \u201cIt is not backed by crime data or any evidence of safety needs. It\u2019s designed to divide us, to conquer us and to promote cynical political goals.\u201d<\/p>\n Several colleges and universities in Texas have begun shifting policies on their campuses to comply with SB 8. The University of Texas at San Antonio relocated roughly 30 students living on-campus to comply with SB 8, according to a\u00a0press release<\/a>\u00a0from the university. Texas Tech University System implemented a new system-wide\u00a0regulation<\/a>\u00a0echoing much of the language of SB 8, but does not list any potential penalties for noncompliance.<\/p>\n