Jared C. Benedict/Wikimedia Commons
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
One defining feature of the modern anti-transgender panic has been the fixation on bathrooms. While early efforts in 2016 were widely rebuked and ultimately failed, the last four years have seen several states enact new versions of bathroom bans. Most have targeted public schools, but legislators have increasingly pushed further—extending restrictions to colleges and universities, publicly owned buildings, even airports. Now, New Hampshire Republican lawmakers are taking the cruelty a step further: their latest proposal would apply to private businesses that offer public restrooms, turning the simple act of a transgender person using the bathroom into potential “willful trespass.”
The bill, HB1442, at first glance resembles measures enacted in states like Texas, South Dakota, and Wyoming. It bars transgender people from using bathrooms that match their gender identity in government-run buildings, including prisons, schools, and municipal facilities such as public restrooms and highway rest stops. But where most states enforce these laws through civil penalties against the government institutions themselves—allowing cities or schools to be sued—New Hampshire’s proposal goes further by targeting the transgender person themselves. It creates a separate trespass statute tied specifically to bathroom use, mirroring Florida’s approach, which likewise imposes criminal penalties on transgender people for entering the “wrong” bathroom.
Importantly, the new violation applies only to transgender women—not transgender men. In debates over restroom access, Republicans have often grown visibly uncomfortable when confronted with the reality that many trans men present with traditionally masculine features, including beards and attire; trans men have repeatedly pointed out in hearings that forcing them into women’s restrooms would be both unsafe and absurd. Rather than take that point as evidence of the incoherence of bathroom bans, New Hampshire lawmakers appear to have drawn a different conclusion: they carved transgender men out of the “willful trespass” provision entirely, which appears to only apply to transgender women:
See the section here:
HB1442
The new bill also targets transgender people in a way not yet seen in any other state: it applies to private businesses. While previous bathroom bans have generally stopped at public schools or government buildings, HB1442 extends its reach to any “place of public accommodation”—hotels, bars, theaters, concert venues, retail stores, and more—allowing those businesses to pursue willful trespass charges against anyone who enters the “wrong” restroom. The bill does not require businesses to file charges, but it does say that signage is sufficient grounds for doing so. In practice, that means transgender people would have to guess, bathroom by bathroom, which businesses might enforce the law—and risk a trespass charge every time they use a public restroom anywhere in the state.
See the section here:
HB1442
The bill is backed by thirteen cosponsors, including several with significant leadership roles, such as Sen. Kevin Avard, who chaired the Senate Rules Committee in the 2023–24 session, and Sen. Regina Birdsell, who led the Senate Health and Human Services Committee during the same period. Their support does not guarantee the bill’s passage, but it is telling: multiple lawmakers with real influence inside the Republican caucus are choosing to elevate this proposal as a priority for the year.
New Hampshire has seen a sharp escalation in anti-transgender policymaking in recent years. In 2024, the legislature advanced both a school bathroom ban and a ban on trans-related surgeries for youth—measures that passed only because multiple Democrats crossed party lines to support them, the only state to see significant defections on transgender rights among Democrats. Those same Democrats pitched their votes as an appeal to “moderate” voters, yet the party went on to lose several seats that fall as Republicans expanded their control of the state. In 2025, lawmakers doubled down, approving additional bills targeting transgender students and prohibiting gender-affirming care for trans youth. New Hampshire has become a case study rebutting the idea that surrendering on transgender rights slows Republican attacks or protects Democrats politically; neither claim has been borne out.
As the 2025–2026 legislative season begins, New Hampshire now has twelve bills trained on transgender residents—an outlier in a region where most states are expanding civil rights, not dismantling them. It signals yet another year in which LGBTQ+ people and their allies will be dragged back into the same exhausting trench warfare, forced to defend the basic ability to move through public life without fear. The relentlessness of these attacks makes one thing unmistakably clear: the fight is not letting up, and neither can they.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Elephant in the room - obviously no man is going into a female bathroom to defecate - the bill doesn’t seem to actually do anything against trans women, only trans men.
354-A:17-b II, to my regret, does lock down women-only areas to be treated the same as female-only areas. Otherwise the following rules would apply only if the areas are actually designated by sex. The only bathrooms I’ve seen are designated by gender… Still, all these rules are frequently made by people who aren’t educated in the relevant fields. That, to me, should invalidate said rules. The same way you wouldn’t trust someone with no medical experience to tell you how to treat a disease.
539:10 specifies men going into female-only areas, meaning, by definition, cis- and trans- men will be in violation.
10 I overrules the previous by stating that people with either male of female sexual organs can enter a female-only area for maintenance purposes, which I find problematic for those with female organs who have sexual trauma - sexes are separated in certain circumstances for a reason.
10 II complements the previous by stating that men and trans women accompanied by a female care-giver shall not be obstructed from entering a female-only area.
Soo, men cannot enter female- or women- only areas unless they are performing emergency assistance or maintenance, or they are accompanied by a female or trans male carer.
Does their law state anywhere that a man = male and a woman = female? If not, this law has the above loopholes.
Edit: Did my own research. Technically yes, is my answer.
HB 1312 explicitly defines “female” as an individual whose biological sex determined at birth is female, and states “women” or “girls” refers to biological females, with a parallel definition for “male,” “men,” or “boys”, so essentially the same tactic as 354-A:17-b II.
However, RSA 21:3 states that words like “man,” “woman,” “husband,” and “wife” in statutes are to be construed as gender-neutral, and RSA 21:54 prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, as does RSA 354-A. So, as long as 354-A is legally enforced, none of the rest can be.
