The national conversation around restroom access has never been simple, and recent events continue to show that there is no doorway that guarantees safety for transgender people. Even when a trans person chooses the restroom associated with their sex assigned at birth, the risk of harassment does not disappear. In fact, two widely discussed incidents highlight how compliance with restrictive norms often makes no difference at all. A trans man was confronted by security at an Illinois arcade after using the women’s restroom, and months later another trans man was filmed and yelled at inside a Barnes and Noble women’s restroom. In both cases, these individuals used the exact facilities critics say they should, yet the result was still humiliation, fear, and public scrutiny.
The idea that forcing trans people to use their birth-sex restroom will prevent conflict has never aligned with lived reality. The pattern revealed by these incidents makes that truth unmistakably clear.
The Arcade Incident: When Compliance Still Leads to Harm
The first event occurred at a Round1 arcade in Illinois, where trans man Lucien Bates entered the women’s restroom because he believed it would be safer and because he felt he would avoid being misgendered by staff or customers. His decision was rooted in caution, not defiance. Having faced harassment while using men’s facilities in the past, Bates opted for the entrance that was less likely to spark a confrontation.
However, within moments, a security guard followed him into the restroom and demanded to know why he was there. Bates explained that he was assigned female at birth and had used the restroom accordingly. Instead of resolving the situation, the staff escalated it. Bates reported receiving a warning that he posed a risk to children. Security called for backup and threatened to involve the police. Bates’ fiancé and friend stood nearby, horrified as the situation worsened.
Legal experts later noted that Illinois law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public accommodations. The state’s Human Rights Act protects trans individuals in places like restaurants, retail spaces, and entertainment venues. Despite that, the staff acted as though Bates had committed an offense. He had complied with the legal framework and the social expectation of using the facility tied to his birth sex, yet the incident still turned into a confrontation that left him shaken and humiliated.
The key question arises: if even strict adherence to restrictive norms results in harassment, what exactly is expected of trans individuals?
The Bookstore Confrontation: Viral Outrage and Public Misunderstanding
Months after the arcade incident, another confrontation occurred inside a Barnes and Noble bookstore and quickly circulated online. A woman recorded herself entering the women’s restroom and grew visibly agitated when she saw a trans man inside. She began shouting that “there are little girls in there” and insisted she felt unsafe. Her video captured another customer attempting to block the camera to protect everyone’s privacy. The trans man being yelled at calmly explained that he had been assigned female at birth and had chosen the women’s restroom because his identification still reflected that designation.
Once again, a trans person was using the very restroom that critics deem appropriate. Yet the situation still devolved into fear, accusation, and public spectacle. The trans man in question presented in a masculine way, and the combination of facial hair, clothing style, and accessories apparently triggered suspicion from the woman who confronted him. Her discomfort did not arise from the legal or biological facts but from how she perceived his gender presentation. This reveals a core truth: people react to what they see, not what a person’s birth certificate says.
The intensity of the confrontation in the video also highlighted a second layer of the problem. The woman justified filming inside the restroom by citing her First Amendment rights. Her decision to record the faces of other patrons, including minors, reflected a growing trend of individuals turning restroom policing into content creation. This trend incentivizes conflict, encourages people to make assumptions based on appearance, and places trans people in the direct path of public hostility.
Why These Conflicts Persist Even When Trans People Comply
These incidents show that even when a trans person uses the facility tied to their birth sex, several factors continue to create conditions for confrontation.
One factor is gender presentation. Many trans men appear masculine, and many trans women appear feminine. Forcing trans men into women’s restrooms places bearded, male-presenting individuals in a space where patrons may react with alarm. People perceive the presence of trans women in men’s restrooms as suspicious. The issue is not biology in the regulatory sense but the social experience of gender as an observable identity. People respond to what they perceive in the moment, not what a state document might say.
Another factor is fear-based messaging. Advocacy organizations note that public discourse around restrooms has been shaped by repeated claims that trans presence in these spaces threatens children’s safety. Credible evidence has not supported these claims. However, repeated exposure to them shapes the public’s instincts. Both the bookstore and arcade justified the confrontations by citing imagined danger instead of actual behavior. Other patrons interpret trans people’s presence through a lens of suspicion, leading to these conflicts rather than trans people breaking the rules.
A third factor is inconsistent enforcement of policy. Laws, corporate rules, and local regulations vary widely. Even in places with inclusive protections, individual employees may act on personal beliefs rather than established policy. In the arcade case, security staff incorrectly claimed Bates was violating rules. In the bookstore incident, the woman filming acted as if she had authority to enforce her interpretation of restroom norms. Inconsistency creates confusion and fuels conflict. Trans people cannot plan around this unpredictability, which means they face potential confrontation regardless of their choices.
Finally, the most significant factor is persistent cultural discomfort with gender diversity. Many people still divide the world into strictly defined categories and expect others to fit neatly inside them. When someone defies those expectations, even unintentionally, observers may react with discomfort or hostility. That disThis discomfort can lead to confrontations, regardless of whether the person is using the expected restroom or not. Trans people become the target of that tension regardless of which symbolic door they choose.
The Emotional and Practical Toll
The cumulative emotional cost of these encounters is immense. Many transgender people describe restrooms as the most stressful part of leaving their home. Surveys from the Williams Institute report that a significant percentage of trans adults avoid using public restrooms entirely due to fear of harassment. Some limit fluid intake before going out. Others leave events early or avoid certain locations entirely. For individuals who frequently travel for work or live in areas with restricted restroom policies, these limitations significantly affect daily life.
These restrictions also create health consequences. Avoiding restrooms for extended periods can lead to urinary tract infections, kidney strain, and other medical complications. The idea that using one’s birth-sex restroom will provide safety does nothing to address the physical and emotional damage caused by being treated as a spectacle or as a potential threat.
Why the Debate Will Not End Under Restrictive Expectations
Some lawmakers claim that requiring restroom use by birth sex will eliminate confusion and prevent confrontation. The real-world evidence shows the opposite. These incidents reveal a pattern in which trans people face scrutiny simply for existing, regardless of which restroom they choose.
If a trans man uses the men’s restroom, he may face accusations of not being “male enough.” If he uses the women’s restroom, he may be accused of being “a man invading the space.” The same is true in reverse for trans women. The conflict is not solved by assignment. It is created by the public’s discomfort with any deviation from their expectations about gender.
Even in spaces with gender-neutral or single-occupancy restrooms, trans people report being followed, questioned, or instructed to justify their choice. This demonstrates that the debate has never truly been about specific facilities. It has always been about who is allowed to belong without being interrogated.
Toward a Realistic Understanding of What Will Improve Safety
Solving the problem requires acknowledging that harassment emerges from prejudice, not from a person’s choice of restroom. Public safety improves only when social norms evolve, when policies are clear and consistently enforced, and when education reduces the fear that fuels these confrontations.
The presence of trans people in public life is not going away. Visibility continues to grow, and the broader public is slowly becoming more aware of transgender experiences. Efforts to force trans people into restrictive categories do not halt that progress. Instead, they create conflict for everyone involved.
The Bottom Line
The incidents at the Illinois arcade and the Barnes and Noble bookstore provide vivid examples of why forcing trans people to use restrooms tied to their birth sex will never resolve the conflicts that arise. In both cases, trans men followed the expected rule, yet still faced harassment. Their compliance did nothing to protect them. It only placed them in environments where gender presentation and social expectations collided.
Restroom policies rooted in birth sex assume that identity and presentation can be separated cleanly. Real life shows that they cannot. As long as society responds to trans people based on what it sees and fears rather than on factual harm or actual behavior, restroom access will remain fraught.
The path forward requires more than facility assignment. It requires recognition that safety is not created by forcing trans people into specific spaces but by ensuring they are treated with dignity wherever they go.
