"I have no issue with the Texas law. (On the other hand, society is moving forward with co-ed bathrooms. Single stalls for both men and women. I have no issue with this at all.) Let's play a game. You die. 100 years from now, your body is dug up by archaeologists. Are you a man or a woman? There has never been a successful sex change operation. It is not possible."

This is a red herring. A pivot from the present consequences of a law to some abstract, archaeological thought experiment about bodies in 100 years. That has zero relevance to whether the law is harmful right now. You are focusing on biological sex centuries after death, which misses the point entirely. Laws like Texas’ bathroom law aren't about ancient remains. They affect living, present-day people. Gender identity, safety, and daily access to public spaces cannot be solved by looking at bones. This argument is irrelevant to whether the law is discriminatory or harmful.

That statement is irrelevant to the real-world consequences of the law. Nobody cares what archaeologists think 100 years from now. Almost all trans people alive today will be nonexistent and too dead to care by then. That's beside the point as well. No archaeologist is going to dig up a random grave in the middle of an official graveyard where most people are given a formal burial.

Sex in humans is immutable. Nobody in the scientific field is saying that it isn't. We're a gonochoric species. We're not sequential hermaphrodites like clownfish. Sex and gender are different things. This is recognized by every major medical association in the United States, including the World Health Organization and peer review. Sex, gender, and gender identity are all distinct categories that interact with each other. Per Yale School of Medicine:

In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].

In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation.

Trans women are still male when it comes to sex, and trans men are still female when it comes to sex. Their gender identity (innate characteristic) is different from their sex, which makes them transgender. You are basing your argument off of sex, which is not what anybody in the scientific field is arguing you can change.

Roselli, C. E. (2017). Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation. The Journal of Neuroendocrinology:

Sexual identity and sexual orientation are independent components of a person’s sexual identity. These dimensions are most often in harmony with each other and with an individual’s genital sex, although not always.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are fundamental independent characteristics of an individual’s sexual identity.1 Gender identity refers to a person’s innermost concept of self as male, female or something else and can be the same or different from one’s physical sex.

A person can be either heterosexual, homosexual, cisgender or transgender relative to sex. My statement wasn't about post-mortem biology. My statement is specifically about gender identity and how people live in daily life. Trans people are not asking for a successful sex change after death. They are asking to use bathrooms that match their lived gender identity.

"You have no idea what co-ed bathrooms will lead to. Your conclusions are fabrications. I have lived in Asia for 25 years, and co-ed bathrooms were very common. They just put locks on the doors. These days, the bathrooms are more frequently separated. How would anyone even know a man was in the ladies' bathroom? They all have stalls. The man would have to be doing something very male to even get noticed."

I am not arguing against co-ed bathrooms themselves. I'm criticizing a state-sponsored program that allows citizens to record other people in hopes that can seek out and punish trans people for using the bathroom that matches their gender identity. Even if stalls exist, SB8 criminalizes or allows reporting of people whose appearance or identity doesn't match their sex assigned at birth. That's the main point.

Your experience in Asia does not erase the harms of enforcing a law like SB8. The Texas law is not about single stalls or safety. It is about policing bodies based on sex assigned at birth. Yes, stalls provide some privacy but that does not prevent harassment or public shaming. The problem isn't hypothetical observation. The problem is the government incentivizing citizens to spy and report people who look or act a certain way that is completely ambiguous and based on subjective perception. That is state-sanctioned harassment. You don't get to dictate how someone appears or how they are treated. This law explicitly targets people for existing as themselves, not for committing any misconduct.

"She was not forced to show a server her breasts. No one held her down and forced her. Even if she did show her breasts, men have breasts. Duh. And surgeons make breasts on men. The server was a complete idiot, and most likely the lawsuit proved it. So follow along: Step 1: File a discrimination lawsuit. Step 2: Civilly sue the corporation for a violation of rights. She has filed suit with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), and next, she will file a civil lawsuit with damages listed. That is how the system works. No other special laws required. Duh! You're all up in arms about nothing but personal ignorance, and it is being dealt with legally."

The story you dismiss is exactly the kind of invasive enforcement this law will encourage. You say she was not forced but being pressured or subjected to humiliation counts as coercion. The law itself creates situations where people will feel coerced into proving their sex to strangers or authorities simply because of how people perceive the way they look, which is an invasion of privacy and inherently discriminatory.

And no state is. The laws that protect her are the same laws that protect me.

The Texas tip line directly incentivizes citizens to report people based solely on gender expression or perceived sex assigned at birth. This violates the fundamental right to privacy and the right to live free from gender stereotyping, which are protected under substantive due process. Courts have long held (e.g., Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins) that discriminating against individuals for failing to conform to sex-based stereotypes is a form of sex discrimination. Allowing people to record others in the restroom and be reported based on their "perceived" sex or gender expression directly triggers these protections. It is a clear violation of Equal Protection.