IF 'SHE' HAS A DICK, 'SHE' BELONGS IN THE MEN'S RESTROOM

Enforcement of Texas’ “bathroom bill” draws challenges as colleges, cities implement new policies

In its first week, one group’s test of the new restrictions was met with ID checks at women’s restrooms at the Capitol while the Austin City Council moved to circumvent the law's intent. 

 

By Ayden Runnels

 

The Texas Tribune

Dec 12, 2025

 

 

  

Texas Department of Public Safety officers guard the women’s bathroom and ask some individuals to show ID to enter at the Capitol in Austin on Dec. 6, 2025. Members of 6W Project protested the newly enacted Senate Bill 8 “bathroom bill” by checking what the enforcement measures to enter the bathroom would be at the Capitol. SB 8, also known as the Texas Women’s Privacy Act, is aimed at restricting transgender people’s access to certain restrooms in the state, and went into effect on Dec. 4, 2025. 

 

In the week since Texas’ new “bathroom bill” 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.

Senate Bill 8, also known as the Texas Women’s 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 “every reasonable step” to ensure people do not enter restrooms not matching their sex assigned at birth.

Supporters of the law pushed for more than a decade to cement the sex-based restrictions SB 8 creates as a way of protecting women’s private spaces. Opponents of the law, however, have maintained the lack of clear guidelines on how to uphold SB 8 will lead to uneven, ineffective and potentially invasive enforcement — and on Dec. 6, a group of protesters went to the Texas Capitol to test that claim. 

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’s 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. 

DPS cited the State Preservation Board’s public restroom policy, which was updated in February, and “expects” visitors to use restrooms matching their “biological sex.” 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’s restrooms were not guarded by officers.

 

Matilda Miller, 6W Project president, left, and Hya Gray, 6W Comms director, right, speak with Texas DPS troopers standing guard outside a women’s restroom at the Capitol on Dec. 6, 2025. Miller is a trans woman, but has an F gender marker on her ID, so the troopers allowed her to enter the facility. 

 

“I think that the Texas government just established that they have no consistent enforceable standards for this law,” said protester Matilda Miller after the demonstration on Saturday.

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’s 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. 

“What we did was not radical, it was not profound,” Vazquez said. “People 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.”

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’s implementation, including once at the state’s 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’ phone. Travis County Jose Garza also launched an investigation into Evans to evaluate whether she had broken state law.

 

Ry Vazquez, 6W Project council member, left, and Anna LaVallee, right, were detained by Texas DPS troopers at the Capitol in Austin on Dec. 6, 2025. Vazquez and LaVallee are trans women and were given a criminal trespass warning and banned from Capitol grounds for a year for “initially failing to cooperate with law enforcement.” 

 

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 Tuesday ruled in Garza’s favor, allowing the investigation to continue.

Those who enter the “wrong” restrooms are not individually punished by SB 8, however the law carries steep penalties for institutions where violations occur. The fines — $25,000 for the first instance and then $125,000 per day for every subsequent violation — are only imposed after complaints are filed with the institution and the Attorney General’s office and an investigation is conducted. Individuals can also sue institutions for violations.

Cities and counties must also comply with SB 8’s restrictions, but Austin City Council is hoping a new resolution passed 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.

“We don’t know if anyone else has done this,” Austin City Council member Mike Siegel said. “In some ways, Texas is the testing ground for new discriminatory and hateful policies, and we’re just responding as creatively as we can.” 

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’s important to note that any renovations stemming from the program would not come out of the city’s 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.

Despite the resolution’s attempt to distance Austin from SB 8’s 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’s decision to align with the law is a step in the right direction.

“Your resolution states that the city does not seek to invade the privacy of any individual or violate their civil rights,” Castle said. “That’s excellent news to hear, because every time a man is allowed to enter a female restroom or locker room, that is exactly what happens.”

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’s resolution and Arlington’s decision to suspend discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ residents were the right steps to comply with the law.

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.

“This is very much likely an unconstitutional law. It is motivated by discriminatory animus,” Siegel said during a Thursday press conference after the resolution was passed. “It is not backed by crime data or any evidence of safety needs. It’s designed to divide us, to conquer us and to promote cynical political goals.”

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 press release from the university. Texas Tech University System implemented a new system-wide regulation echoing much of the language of SB 8, but does not list any potential penalties for noncompliance. 

Community colleges across the state have also rolled out new guidance and signage in response to the law. At Texarkana College and Blinn College, signs posted outside restrooms clarify each facility for use by those with matching “biological sex.” Tarrant Community College also released guidance online for students and faculty navigating the law’s effects, and emphasized that reporting violations is strictly voluntary and not mandatory.

Public schools are also affected by SB 8, however whether the Texas Education Agency will provide guidance to districts on implementation remains unclear. Some school districts, like Carroll Independent School District, have been implementing individual policies regulating restroom use based on biological sex since 2023. The TEA did not respond to requests for comment about SB 8.

 

Ry Vazquez shows the criminal trespass warning citation she received after being detained by Texas DPS officers at the Capitol on Dec. 6, 2025. Vazquez is a trans woman and was given a criminal trespass warning and banned from capital grounds for a year