I really wish I could get (temporarily) into the head of these people. Are they just thinking about trans women because that's what they've been told, and trans men haven't even occurred to them?

Or are they actually counting on the likely effect, that trans men would be at risk using the legally-assigned women's bathroom, so they would probably not use any bathroom? Because Jesus would not turn a person away from both bathrooms.

...something something Matthew 25:31-46 something something...

Bigots once again using religion to justify their hate.

They're in Bothell! Why are they trying to control Seattle's toilets?

The issue never really has been bathrooms -- that's a red herring. The issue is showers and locker rooms. Anybody who wants privacy in a bathroom can use a stall, but that's not true in showers and lockers -- the only choice there is usually to just not use them at all. And that's what people who value modesty will do. But is it really OK -- equal protection and all that -- to tell people whose religious beliefs say they shouldn't appear naked in front of people of the opposite sex that they're simply excluded? Perhaps that's fine with trans advocates -- just tell anyone who doesn't want people of the opposite sex to see them naked "too bad, deal with it".

So do proper evangelical women REALLY want a transgender man (who was born female and now looks and dresses like a man--to be clear) using the women's restroom snd shower with them??? It seems like the evangelicals have not spent much time thinking this out.