REPORTING AS PROPAGANDA: Should Transgender Students Be Able to Use the Bathroom of Their Choice? Nevada Debates. Alternative, more accurate headline: Should Men Be Able To Hang Around In Female School Locker Rooms and Showers? Nevada Debates.

Should transgender [sic] students attending public schools be allowed to use the bathroom aligned to their asserted gender [sic]?

That’s the question Nevada lawmakers are debating this week, as they consider a bill that would ban transgender [sic] students from using a bathroom, locker room or shower different from their biological sex.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 375, is popularly known as a “Bathroom Bill” because it specifically applies to transgender [sic] persons using sex-specific facilities. Various states have introduced similar versions of this legislation.

Kudos to the author for linking the bill. But a cursory glance at the document shows that the author’s description is false. The bill does not in fact “specifically appl[y] to transgender [sic] persons using sex-specific facilities. It applies to all people.

So, what does the bill actually say?

Section 1 of this bill requires that any school facility in a public school, including a restroom, locker room or shower which is designated for use by persons of one biological sex must only be used by persons of that biological sex, as determined at birth.

Section 1 also requires a public school to provide separate, private areas designated for use by pupils based on their biological sex for any school facility where pupils may be in a state of undress in the presence of other pupils.

(To keep it short, I pulled text from the digest rather than the bill itself. But this summary is accurate.) The bill applies to everyone: In schools, males are to use bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers designated for males, and females are to use such facilities designated for females — irrespective of self-identification. Paragraph 3 of section 1 gives special privileges (called accommodations) to those who “assert[ing]” a different “gender.” If anything, the bill discriminates against normal people, who receive no accommodations.

One notable detail in the bill is how it is just carving out an exception to a general rule that, in all other cases, “transgender” people must be treated as if they are the sex that they claim to be:

For the purposes of section 1, section 3 of this bill provides an exception from the provisions of existing law that otherwise make it unlawful to deny equal access to places of public accommodation on the ground of gender identity or expression. (NRS 651.070) . . .

Sec. 3. NRS 651.070 is hereby amended to read as follows: 651.070 . . . Except as otherwise provided in section 1 of this act, all persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender [sic] identity or expression.

In other words, all of you bigots out there who have female-only spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc.) at your places of business must allow men to use them if those men happen to say they’re women. But schools? No, bigotry is fine in schools.

People who don’t want to be forced to treat men like women (or women like men) in providing bathrooms etc. should oppose this law. If everyone suffers with no exception, there might be a better chance of scraping “gender [sic] identity or expression” from the state’s nondiscrimination law.