A consistent theme of anti-transgender rhetoric revolves around the “bathroom predator” concept. A pervasive fear in the eyes of many, the “bathroom predator” is based on the idea that men will pretend to be women in order to invade women’s restrooms and sexually assault or violate the women who use these gender separated spaces. The Bathroom Predator Argument is frequently used to oppose inclusive policies that may otherwise benefit gender nonconforming individuals and further serves as a way to ostracize and to call attention to transgender people in public restrooms. According to The National Center for Transgender Equality, this argument lacks significant evidence. Drawing on numerous U.S. Police Departments in areas where gender-inclusive bathroom policies had recently been instated, the center reports that no cases of cross-dressing men using bathroom legislation as defense for sexual assault occurred. This concept of bathroom predators is, therefore, ill-informed and even biased against transgender people. It stems from a lack of understanding for trans people as well as dehumanizing rhetoric that surrounds the subject. The deeply rooted nature of this argument does not, however, hinder the ability of activists to improve society’s understanding of transgender individuals; people have the capacity to grow and change. Therefore, it is crucial to educate the public on the differences between sex and gender as well as the legitimacy of transgender people in a way that separates itself from political connotation and judgment. 

The fight over gender-inclusive bathroom policies spans much of the 2010s and has occurred across the country. One of the most notable examples is North Carolina’s House Bill 2, which strictly limited the use of public restrooms based on gender assigned at birth, banning a number of trans people from using the bathroom where they felt most comfortable in. While the bill was ultimately knocked down, it posed a major threat to trans rights and incited arguments across social media. An even more contentious fight occurs within the public school system as more and more gender non-conforming students pursue legal action in response to the denial of their right to use the bathroom in which they identify. Consider Gavin Grimm, a trans man from Gloucester, VA., Hiswhose lengthy legal case (extending beyond his time as a high school student) was consistently appealed to the highest levels until it was ultimately decided in August 2019 that the Gloucester County School Board violated his rights.

Most recently, the discussion of transgender bathroom rights has revolved around the Harry Potter series author J.K. Rowling's personal beliefs on transgender individuals. Her opinions have brought significant attention to this subject and sparked major disagreement over the legitimacy of transgender people and their place in gendered areas. On her website, J.K. Rowling presents a fascinating - yet short-sighted argument - the largest assertion being that feminism exists solely for those who were assigned female at birth because of their sex. This assertion inherently questions the existence of transgender people in addition to their place within the feminist movement. Rowling’s thought process attempts to be encompassing but does so in a way that is largely dismissive. Where this is most evident is her appeals to transgender people - “I want trans women to be safe,” she claims, just before asserting that the outright acceptance of gender-inclusive bathrooms would “...make natal girls and women less safe.” This viewpoint incorrectly places the blame for sexual assault in gendered spaces on transgender individuals rather than the perpetrators of such acts. Rowling’s entire argument is that the implementation of gender-inclusive bathroom policies, while beneficial for trans people (who she claims to support), should not be instituted because of people who would take advantage of them. This belief assumes that those who would go into bathrooms to assault women were previously disincentivized because they were men who weren’t allowed inside. Rowling argues that she supports trans rights, just not the growing popularity of being transgender. Her argument exhibits a major logical flaw: the idea that gender identity as determined by a person should be subject to critical doubt. She argues that many of the people who identify as trans, especially those at an early age, are simply confused. While she thinks that she is helping children and women, she is actually invalidating the gender identities of many. 

This flawed way of thinking aligns with a faction of “feminists” categorized as TERFs, or Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFS, a term that J.K. Rowling rails against in her personal essay. Essentially, this term differentiates between the majority of feminists who believe that feminism should encompass women on the basis of gender identity versus trans exclusionary feminists who believe feminism is a movement based on “biological sex.” Common arguments made by TERFs include the idea that trans men are simply lesbian women hoping to escape sexism or that trans-inclusive bathroom policies invite sexual predators into female spaces, among many others. Primarily, these types of “feminists” hold beliefs that are predicated on the disingenuity of transgender people. They paint trans people who express their identity without psychological evaluation or gender-affirming medical treatments, in the words of Human Rights Campaign Press Secretary Sarah McBride, as “‘caricatures’ of women.” 

This “TERF” mindset is prevalent within J.K. Rowing’s infamous blog post, from expressing concern for “...gender confirmation certificates…[being] granted without any need for surgery or hormones…” to claiming that she herself may have considered transitioning to be a man in her youth out of “confusion” as a way to escape stereotypes about women. This rhetoric, while seemingly logical to those who use it, is extremely dismissive of the very real existence of transgender people and proves to be ultimately harmful to women as a whole. The logical shortcoming in TERF arguments is that being a woman, along with all the discrimination that women face, is derived purely from a physical standpoint. It insinuates that sexism is not socially constructed, but instead a result of inherent biological differences between men and women. Is this not, however, contradictory to feminism as a whole? It completely disregards the fact that women were historically placed into certain roles and limited in what they could accomplish, not out of pure physical inferiority but because of societal biases and discrimination. Because of this, being a woman is so much more than a simple biological categorization. Experiences of sexism are not all the same, even among purely cisgendered women. This suggests that sexism occurs beyond a “biological” level and could impact women who may not have been born with specific sexual anatomy. 

The resolution to this misunderstanding for the meaning of feminism lies in further affirmation of transgender people. While many attempt to disprove TERF arguments from a biological perspective, citing the existence of intersex people as primary evidence, this often falls short because it fails to address the root of the problem: failure to see gender as socially constructed. Without acknowledging that gender is not based on sex alone,--that there is a fundamental difference between gender and sex--there is no way to see beyond the oversimplification of feminism that lies within the TERF perspective. It is incredibly difficult to shift one’s mindset to a new understanding of reality; TERFs are seemingly unable to accept that people sometimes identify with a gender that differs from their sex assigned at birth. Their understanding of gender as biological neglects its complexity. It is difficult to understand, but there is no single reason why some people are transgender.; Ffurther, seeking one only undermines the diverse experiences of the trans community. Instead, it is crucial to accept that people simply are trans and the existence of “trans-ness” impacts the conceptualization of what makes a woman. 

This all contributes to the unfortunate truth that the most viable resolution to TERF ideology, the idea of a “bathroom predator,” in particular, is improving common understanding of transgender people. Social activists have had a great deal of success in this regard, but as evidenced by the discourse over J.K. Rowling and her words, there is still a great deal of discussion that must occur. It’s disheartening, but not impossible, to slowly work towards shifting perspective away from the focus on potentially disingenuous people disguising themselves to take advantage of an inclusive policy to acceptance of trans people. Throughout this process of growing acceptance, it is also important to understand the views of the opposition, harmful as they may be. People rarely think of themselves as wrong; it is a difficult process to come to terms with one’s own prejudices and presumptions that are incorrect. There’s a reason J.K. Rowling wrote an entire essay to defend her beliefs. It was a one-sided expression of her thoughts, only furthered by the blocking of those who disagreed with her, that created a feeling of righteousness. Her words are incredibly misguided, but one can tell that J.K. Rowling’s actions and words originate from her good intentions. This is not an issue that can be solved within a single article or expression, but it can progress through two-sided communication with the ultimate goal of understanding the identities of others.