Skip to main content


Log in

Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms

  • Published:
Sexuality Research and Social Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript


Legislation, regulations, litigation, and ballot propositions affecting public restroom access for transgender people increased drastically in the last three years. Opponents of gender identity inclusive public accommodations nondiscrimination laws often cite fear of safety and privacy violations in public restrooms if such laws are passed, while proponents argue that such laws are needed to protect transgender people and concerns regarding safety and privacy violations are unfounded. No empirical evidence has been gathered to test such laws’ effects. This study presents findings from matched pairs analyses of localities in Massachusetts with and without gender identity inclusive public accommodation nondiscrimination ordinances. Data come from public record requests of criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to measure safety and privacy violations in these spaces. This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces. Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. See, e.g., EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes, 2018, which affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s previous holdings that discrimination against a transgender individual is illegal sex discrimination under Title VII. In that case, a funeral home director was fired after she told her employer that she was transgender and planned to transition and begin wearing women’s work clothing on the job. The court also stated that religious beliefs and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act do not overrule the nondiscrimination requirements of Title VII. The last paragraph in this section discusses court cases that directly address sex discrimination as it applies to transgender individuals in the context of restroom access.

  2. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has slowed support for this Equal Access Rule in the last year. Online training materials meant to support homeless shelters in the implementation of the rule were ordered removed from the department’s website (MacGillis, 2017).

  3. Boston and Cambridge both had a GIPANDO prior to the 2011 state law. Neither locality is included in this analysis.

  4. The initial design also planned to identify contiguous localities, treating boundary lines as regression discontinuities (Keele & Titiunik, 2015). However, since the occurrence of the crimes sought was rare, there was insufficient analytical power to utilize geographic variation to the full extent possible. Instead, the researchers opted for simpler analytical methods relying on data preprocessing and case selection to reduce analytical assumptions. However, the matched localities were limited to localities that had a shared boundary with at least one of the GIPANDO localities.

  5. The indices were: the Neighborhood Scout Crime Index (retrieved from, violent crimes per 1000 residents and property crimes per 1000 residents, the Crime Index (retrieved from, and the City 2012 Index (retrieved from

  6. We conducted a second analysis using a matching procedure that included localities with clear GIPANDOs, localities with limited GIPANDOs, and matched localities that clearly did not have a GIPANDO. This second analysis found similar results to the analysis presented above. See Appendix for a description and results of this second analysis.


Download references


The authors would like to thank Kerith Conron and Brad Sears for their extensive feedback on analytical approaches and presentation of findings. The authors would also like to thank the records keepers at the police departments throughout Massachusetts who assisted in responding to the public records requests that were a necessary part of the data collection for this project. The authors would also like to thank Chrissy Reinard and Joseph Rocha, who provided assistance in executing one round of public records requests. Thanks also go to Taylor Brown, who provided research assistance on crime rates throughout New England, and Fernanda Miramontes, who copy edited this paper. Finally, thank you to the editor and anonymous reviewers for their feedback and publication assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amira Hasenbush.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. An IRB exemption was obtained by the authors for use of de-identified criminal record data (IRB#15-001060).

Conflict of Interest

Amira Hasenbush declares that she has no conflict of interest. Andrew Flores declares that he has no conflict of interest. Jody Herman declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Appendix: Placebo Matched Pairs Analysis

Appendix: Placebo Matched Pairs Analysis

The analysis was re-conducted using a second matching procedure. Localities with clear GIPANDOs were matched to localities that clearly did not have a GIPANDO, and localities with limited GIPANDOs (i.e., Brookline and Cambridge) were also matched to localities that clearly did not have a GIPANDO (see Table 2). The limited GIPANDOs offer a type of placebo comparison, where a policy was introduced but not clearly inclusive of the protections that are afforded in localities with clear GIPANDOs.

Table 4 provides a contingency table showing the average annual number of incidents, similar to the analysis in the report. For this analysis, there were three levels of treatment: a group of localities with clear GIPANDOs, a limited GIPANDO group that introduced a gender identity policy, but made exceptions or lacked clarity on restrooms, and the matched localities group without GIPANDOs. There were fewer overall incidents in the group with clear GIPANDOs when compared to the matched localities, but there were no apparent patterns of an increase in victimization in the timeframe after passage. These differences were also not significantly different from one another. A Fisher’s exact test indicated that there was no significant relationship between GIPANDOs and restroom crimes. An estimate of the before-and-after changes between the localities with clear GIPANDOs and their matched pairs of the average proportion of monthly incidents in locations also showed no statistically significant difference. There does not appear to be a relationship between policy introduction and restroom incidents. Again, here, even if there were many more localities, a statistical power analysis found that it is unlikely that there would be a statistically significant difference between GIPANDO localities and matched localities. If there was a sample with 50 matched pairs with observed effect size at 90% power, then a one-tailed alpha would be 0.85, suggesting that the null hypothesis of no difference would also fail to be rejected with a greater number of matched pairs.

Table 4 Average number of incidents per year as documented by police departments by localities with clear GIPANDOs, limited GIPANDOs and matched localities before-and-after policy passage

Similar to before, we assessed trends in crime rates between these localities. This way, it could be assessed whether trends in crime rates increased in clear GIPANDO localities and limited GIPANDO localities, as compared to their matched localities. The figure limits the timeframe to 12 months before and 12 months after the passage of the local GIPANDOs. A 12-month window was chosen because some localities in this analysis were asked to provide incidents within a two-year timeframe, so we restrict the plot to the timeframe common to all localities.

In Fig. 3, the model included differences between localities with clear enforceable GIPANDOs that applied to restrooms and their matched localities (black line), and differences between the limited GIPANDOs with unclear enforceability or restroom exceptions and their matched localities (gray line). The local regressions showed a lot of overlap between and across these three groups. As opposed to the analysis in the body of the report, which showed slightly lower crime rates in the GIPANDO localities as compared to their matched pairs after policy introduction, there was no statistically significant difference in the average monthly proportion of criminal incidents in restrooms both over time and across contexts.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Differences in the average monthly rate of criminal incidents in public restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms among localities with clear GIPANDOs and limited GIPANDOs compared to matched localities without GIPANDOs. Notes: 90% confidence intervals represented by dashed lines; negative values show lower rates of victimizations in GIPANDO localities compared to matched localities before, during, and after policy introduction.

These results indicate that changes in the average rate of criminal incidents are not related to the passage of GIPANDOs. The limited GIPANDOs provide another source of comparison, and these additional comparisons indicate that clear GIPANDOs are not uniquely related to increases in average rates of criminal incidents.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hasenbush, A., Flores, A.R. & Herman, J.L. Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms. Sex Res Soc Policy 16, 70–83 (2019).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: