Pure propaganda.

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.

while proponents argue that such laws are needed to protect transgender people and concerns regarding safety and privacy violations are unfounded.

So, we set out to "prove" women are hysterical. Nice /s

1. Surely, it's safe to say, many instances of assaults (rape, DV, groping) on women already go unreported. If it's legal for males to be in women's spaces - that's yet another barrier to reporting, should instances occur.
   > Limitations (snip) For example, the data used to represent safety and privacy violations in public restrooms were police records of For example, it is estimated that only 30 to 35% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (Truman & Langton, 2014). Nevertheless, by assessing trends over time and using a matched pairs analysis, the authors sought to control for any issues related to unreported incidents. There is no reason to assume that incidents are more or less likely to be reported in a locality with a GIPANDO than in a matched locality.

Ah, yes, yes there is reason to think that!

1. A relatively new law, with a small population of transgender persons at the time evaluated, cannot/should not be extrapolated to a future, probably with a higher population of such persons, and the established expectations of access.
2. What number of women, whether "discomforted" or assaulted, are acceptable to "protect transgender persons".
3. What are "transgender persons being protected" from? What are THOSE rates in the study areas in the time period studied?
4. Authors are in California. Gee, probably no bias... Although, they do an excellent job of highlighting legislations passed during the Obama years!
5. Hmm, they wouldn't have "cherry picked" a location to suit their premises, would they?

Pthfff. Not "proof". Not even going to bother searching refuting citations.

Edit: long on mobile