BATHROOM BILL: IOWA HF2164 1

The Bathroom Bill: Iowa HF 2164

Social Work Policy

Krystyna Kaminski

Loras College
BATHROOM BILL: IOWA HF2164 2

History and Background

The “bathroom bill” is the designated name to the bill that allows (or does not allow)
transgender individuals to use the bathroom according to the gender they identify with. The issue
did not arise on government documentations until 2005. Iowa has yet to pass a bill into law that
defines which bathroom transgender individuals should use. Many states already have, and
among the few, a majority have stated that people should only use restrooms according to their
biological sex. The debate still remains undecided according to federal law, specifically for the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The issue of transgender individuals using certain bathrooms first appeared in 2005 in a
short section titled “Prohibition on Using Women’s Restroom” in the district court case Sturchio
v. Ashcroft (Sturchio v. Ashcroft, 2005). In this court case, the Plaintiff Tracy Sturchio, a
transgender woman, was not allowed in the women’s restrooms by Border Patrol (Sturchio v.
Ashcroft, 2005). This instance, along with other issues of discrimination by Border Patrol,
caused Sturchio take her case to court to sue the Department of Human Services for violating her
civil rights. She lost the case because the ruling was that there was not sufficient enough
evidence nor any set protocol for the situation in order to claim it as discriminatory (Sturchio v.
Ashcroft, 2005).
In 2013, a legal dispute in Colorado that gained a lot media attention was the first ruling
for transgender bathroom rights. A 6-year-old transgender girl named Coy Mathis was not
allowed to use the girl’s bathrooms at her elementary school. They struggled trying to find any
laws that may support her. A complaint was officially filed to the Colorado Civil Rights Division
by the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of Coy’s parents (Frosch,
2013). After an investigation, the director of the Division of Civil Rights Steven Chavez
responded to the parents stating that Coy’s rights were in fact violated, and she may use the
restroom that fits her gender (Chavez, 2013). It was a big win for the transgender community and
started the conversation on laws to protect transgender bathroom rights.
In May of 2016, The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the Civil
Rights Office under the Department of Education released a joint guidance. The Dear Colleague
letter addressed the transgender rights under schools’ Title IX. The letter was written to be used
specifically as guidance for several different types of transgender-related situations such as
bathroom usage (Lhamon & Gupta, 2016). It described how Title IX should be used when
treating students with a gender identity that is different from their biological sex.
The next high-profile case was Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board,
however the Supreme Court ruled against the transgender community and agreed with the
original ruling the United States Court of Appeals from April 2016. In the case, Gavin Grimm, a
transgender boy that was a junior at Gloucester High School, was not allowed to use the men’s
bathrooms after community members complained when they found out he had been using them
for the first 7 weeks of school (Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, 2016). The
court’s ruling was that Title IX was not violated; Grimm’s biological sex was female and was
therefore not discriminated against on the basis of his sex (Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County
School Board, 2016).
BATHROOM BILL: IOWA HF2164 3

In March 2016, North Carolina passed a bill into law that bans transgender individuals
from using the restroom that goes with their gender identity. The law was signed into law by
North Carolina Governor Pat McCory. It was labelled as one of the most anti-LGBT laws passed
and caused an uproar on social media (Allen, 2016). It was titled “An Act To Provide For Single-
Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom And Changing Facilities In Schools And Public Agencies
And To Create Statewide Consistency In Regulation Of Employment And Public
Accommodations” and explained that people must use the restrooms according to their biological
sex, completely disregarding those who identify with a gender different from the sex on their
birth certificate (Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, 2016). Several other states have passed
similar laws or have bills introduced in the state house or senate that addresses the issue of
transgender individuals using the bathroom of their gender identity (Allen, 2016). House Bill 2
has since been repealed in March 2017.
The specific issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that it has yet to be updated in
accordance with the issues of gender identity (transgender) as well as definitions of sex and
sexual orientations. As of 2018, there is a House file that was introduced to the 114th Congress
on July 23, 2015, however it did not make it past that point in the legislative process (Cicilline,
2015). This bill, H.R.3185, is more commonly known as the Equality Act. It provides more
protections for the LGBT community in regards to discrimination and segregation in public
places such as bathrooms (Cicilline 2015). Several states have added these definitions on their
own, such as Iowa (Iowa Civil Rights Act, Ch. 216.2).
Since the North Carolina bill passed, several other states began trying to do the same.
Iowa House of Representatives was introduced HF 2164 in January 2018 which, although not
entirely clear, allows educational and religious institutions to discriminate against transgender
individuals in bathroom usage. It states that they have the right to not allow a person of a gender
identity different from their sex to enter the bathroom of their gender (House File 2164, 2018).
The power structure of the U.S government largely affects the bathroom bill in that states
are able to individually vary how they treat transgender persons and the topic of bathrooms by
adding or eliminating parts of their civil rights bills. However, the U.S. Civil Rights Act is more
difficult to amend because it goes through more representatives and senators than it would in
individual states. The debate seems to be very split across the country. A bathroom bill that takes
away transgender bathroom rights may be more likely to pass in states that are more conservative
and dislike the LGBT community in some amount. With every state having different opinions,
the bill passing on a federal level is less likely and would take more time and persuasion.
The Iowa “bathroom bill” HF 2164 specifically goes against the NASW ethical
standards. The most important one in this case would be standard 1.05, Cultural Awareness and
Social Diversity. Under this standard, social workers must respect diversity, one of the specifics
being gender identity and sex (NASW, 2008, p. 10). This bill blatantly discriminates against the
transgender community and set them up for more violence by forcing them into the bathroom of
their sex rather than their gender. There are stories across the media of transgender persons being
beaten for using the restroom of their biological sex (Allen, 2016). The debate also may include
to conflict of who should be protected: men/women using their biologically designated restroom
or the transgender community that struggles trying to use the restroom of their gender identity.
The bathroom bill has been a more recent policy issue across the states and on the federal
level. The issue was not officially mentioned in court documentation until 2005, and did not gain
BATHROOM BILL: IOWA HF2164 4

momentum until 2013 with the win for Coy Mathis. It would take a lot of persuasion, factual
evidence, and statistics to either add on gender identity and transgender rights to the Civil Rights
Act or to pass a bill stating that transgender individuals must use the bathroom facility of their
biological sex. This is an ongoing debate on how to give rights to the transgender community as
well as help other bathroom user feel comfortable and safe without issue.

Economic Costs
The “bathroom bill” does not directly affect the economy since it is a policy in regards to
bathroom usage for certain groups of people, specifically targeted towards transgender people.
However, since it does have a large impact on institutions and businesses, their business in the
state may change and cause a ripple in the economy. Since the bill will prohibit transgender
persons from using the restroom according to their gender, they may move to another state and
their taxes are then lost. If businesses are unhappy with the bill due to how discriminatory and
controversial it is, they may move their business elsewhere.
This bill forces all people to use the designated bathroom of their biological sex,
regardless of gender. This directly affects transgender people because they will be forced to use
the bathroom of the opposite gender, causing more issues specifically in making every person
using that restroom uncomfortable, especially that individual. The Iowa version of the bathroom
bill that was introduced stated that it was left up to institutions and businesses on how to handle
the bathroom situation, but also removed the definition of gender identity from the Civil Rights
Act (HF 2164, 2018). Since the bill has since died, there is no telling how it could have
potentially cost the state had it passed.
North Carolina infamously passed House Bill 2, one of the most anti-LGBT laws ever
passed. Since then, several businesses have pulled out of the state, specifically PayPal. They
were expected to bring over 400 jobs and $250 million yearly to North Carolina’s economy
(Dalesio, 2017). PayPal was not the only company that immediately pulled out of the state;
Adidas, CoStar, Deustch Bank, Voxpro, and other companies backed out on their plans to bring
more jobs to different areas in the state, causing North Carolina to miss out almost 3,000 jobs
that would potentially bring in more taxes and boost the economy (Dalesio, 2017). Dan Kiely,
CEO of Voxpro stated, “We couldn’t set up operations in a state that was discriminating against
LGBT [people]” (Dalesio, 2017). The Associated Press tallied a potential cost to the state in
regards to how the bill would affect North Carolina’s company over time: a loss of $3.76 billion
(Dalesio, 2017). This tally includes companies that have announced their backing out, however it
does not include any sort of small businesses that do not publish their financial calculations.
The costly issue of a bathroom bill is attempting to provide comfort in restrooms for
transgender customers by building gender neutral bathrooms. There is no source that has
calculated a potential price for this, but without these bathrooms, business owners are left to have
more issues with the confusion of who goes into what bathroom. Businesses do not want to have
to deal with bathroom issues, and without gender neutral bathrooms paid for, business owners
will refuse to discriminate against their customers. Events planned to take place anywhere in
North Carolina are more likely to be cancelled. Associate Press reached out to several companies
and totaled “$196 million from sporting events, conventions, concerts and other events” would
potentially be lost (Associated Press, 2017).
BATHROOM BILL: IOWA HF2164 5

Texas has been debating on a bathroom bill and religious freedom amendment for years,
and the situation there is very similar to North Carolina (Svitek and Ura, 2017). The estimated
loss for Texas if any of the discriminatory legislation passes is $964 million to $8.5 billion
(Texas Association of Business, n.d.). Tourism would be hurt the most considering that many
will refuse to travel to places that are discriminatory against the LGBT community; according to
a survey, approximately 51% of respondents agree that they would not travel where there are
anti-LGBT laws in place (Texas Association of Business, n.d., p. 11). The legislation has a
direct impact on the convention and tourism industry, which “generates more than $6 billion in
state and local tax revenues and directly and indirectly supports more than 1.1 million Texas
jobs” (Texas Association of Business, n.d., p. 1). With such a large amount of money going
towards the Texan economy, legislation like the bathroom bill could hurt those numbers and the
jobs of many Texans. Those job losses estimate at about 185,000 jobs (Texas Association of
Business, n.d., p. 1).
These numbers are estimated, and no source has confirmed the exact price or number of
job losses the bill will cost any state that passes this legislation. It is dependent on the companies
and their policies. In general, however, the bathroom bill is so controversial and disliked that
many companies and businesses will move elsewhere to avoid the issues it brings.

Social/Political Analysis and Social Action

The bathroom bill specifically targets the transgender community, a minority population
already constantly discriminated against as well as at risk of being physically assaulted. The bill
states that individuals must use the restroom that aligns with their biological sex, and completely
eliminates the definition of “gender identity” from the Civil Rights Act. When a bathroom bill
passes, transgender individuals are forced to use the bathrooms or locker rooms of their opposite
gender, which then places a female in a male bathroom (and vice versa), creating an increase in
the likelihood that that individual is beaten or kicked out by other users of the bathroom (Allen,
2016). The way to prevent this type of legislation from passing is lobbying against it, specifically
by also educating legislators and voters on the bill and its harmful effects.
A social worker that works with transgender individuals was interviewed in regards to the
bathroom bill. She was very aware of this policy and how much of an impact it has on the
community. The policy was created to “protect women and children” as stated by Sandy Salmon
when we spoke with her on Lobbying day, however there is no reason for the policy change
since there have not been many, if any, occurrences where a transgender female has done
something to harm women or children in the bathrooms. The issue lies solely in transphobia
among legislators who wrote and proposed the bill. Those with specific beliefs, usually religious,
that disapprove of transgender individuals tend to support the bill to limit the transgender
community’s rights. These biases have a negative impact on the government and can lead to
more issues rather than protect people. There are many fears associated with the bathroom bill.
Those who are for the bill fear for the safety of women and children in allowing a biological man
into bathrooms and locker rooms. Those against the bill fear for the safety of transgender
individuals and have concerns for how the bill is to be enforced, including the economic costs of
the legislation if passed. When looking at the of lobbyists of the bill, the majority are against it
with very few for it.
BATHROOM BILL: IOWA HF2164 6

The bathroom bill doesn’t seem to be going away. It has shown up in almost every state,
but only North Carolina has passed it, though it was repealed a year later in 2017. The bill has
more recently been considered by state congresses in Texas, Alaska, and Iowa. This legislation
violates NASW ethical standards, specifically standard 1.05, Cultural Awareness and Social
Diversity (NASW, 2008, p. 10). Social workers must advocate for all people and work to protect
all diversities. This bill violates the rights of the transgender communities, and social workers
have the duty of advocating for them by talking to legislators and lobbyists to stop the bill from
passing. It’s important to educate people on the bill and the transphobia associated with it to
prevent discrimination that comes with the passing of the bathroom bill.
A way to start social action besides lobbying is starting the discussion and acting on it.
Since the bill has since died in Iowa, there is still a chance that it will be re-proposed later on. To
stop it, we can have petitions started, host public forums, and use social media. It doesn’t have to
start as broadly as the capital, but it can start in a community such as Loras College. We talked to
Residential Life about gender-neutral bathrooms and locker rooms. At the time they did not have
an actual count of bathrooms but said they had no gender-neutral lock rooms. There were also no
set rules in regards to bathroom usage for transgender individuals for Loras. We began the
conversation with Residential Life, so they are working towards adding more gender neutral
bathrooms on campus.
Another step is to talk to the administration on policies regarding transgender individuals.
We can educate faculty and staff by providing Ally Trainings, which includes discussion of
LGBT related statistics, proper terms, issues, and more. Our main goal is to require them for all
faculty and staff in order to educate them to avoid situations involving transphobia, as well as
combatting homophobia and biphobia. With adding more inclusion in the classroom and
educating on harmful legislation like the bathroom bill, we can prevent it from passing.
BATHROOM BILL: IOWA HF2164 7

References
Allen, S. (2016, March 25). GOP wants men to use women's bathrooms. Retrieved from The
Daily Beast: http://ezproxy.loras.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.loras.edu/docview/1782994331?accountid=35772