West Virginia senators will be considering issues of who’s wearing what in locker rooms and the legality of “adult cabaret.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee discussed and advanced each of the bills on Friday. Lawmakers are coming up on a deadline at midweek to move bills to the opposite chamber, so these were among the last bills to be pushed out of Senate committees.
The first, expanding the crime of indecent exposure, was rolled out from the Judiciary Committee as an originating bill, so it didn’t have a number or a way to read it online.
It clarifies the definition of indecent exposure by requiring the exposure to be likely to cause affront or alarm to the person to whom he or she exposes himself or herself. It includes undressing in the opposite sex’s locker room within the crime of indecent exposure.
The rationale for the bill wasn’t always crystal clear. Although it could be taken as policy affecting transgender people, no one explicitly said so. Senators did talk in terms of “biological males” being in women’s locker rooms.
At one point Judiciary Tom Willis asked the committee counsel, “In your research on this bill, are you aware of any instances in the state of West Virginia where biological males have gone into female locker rooms over the past few years?”
The committee attorney could not say directly if specific instances have occurred, but said there could be some circumstantial evidence.
Willis, who is a candidate for U.S. Senate, followed up: “Did your research include any of the instances where biological adult males were going into female locker rooms in YMCAs locations around the state and undressing?”
The committee attorney did not see those instances.
In another instance, Willis asked if “there are municipalities around the state that have made it legal for a person who claims to be of the opposite gender from their biological gender to enter into locker rooms.”
The committee attorney again had not heard that but conceded that the chairman might be better acquainted with such situations.
Senators spent more than an hour discussing how the bill might work in practical terms.
Senator Ryan Weld, R-Brooke, said much of the proposed phrasing is vague yet carries criminal prosecution consequences: “Undresses. What does that mean? Does that mean I just took off my hoodie? Does that mean that I completely undressed?
“It could sweep in completely lawful and legal activity. Do I think it’s appropriate for a biological male to be changing in a women’s locker room? Absolutely not. But they’re now going to be held under the indecent exposure statute for being in there and doing nothing but taking off their sweatshirt.”
Weld later gave a specific example.
“So a biological male is in a women’s locker room, takes off the sweatshirt, takes off the T-shirt, and there he stands wearing a women’s sports bra with a big hairy chest, and so that might cause some affront or alarm at a woman who isn’t used to seeing somebody in a sports bra with a hairy chest and back in the locker room with her,” Weld said.
“So I mean that would, again, could sweep the illegal act and make it illegal when they have not exposed themselves.”
Although the bill centered on indecent exposure, some senators asked why a man would be in a women’s locker room in the first place. They suggested that should be the focus.
“I’m thinking just as a common sense thing, you know, just because a biological man enters a locker room, why does he that person has to be undressing?” said Senator Scott Fuller, R-Wayne.
“He is being able to watch females undress. So I mean, that would be a crime, right? Is that not? I mean, it’s more than just him exposing himself and but it’s also voyeurism.”
Committee counsel said that scenario is probably covered elsewhere in criminal code.
“But I thought the intent of this bill was to keep them out of the locker room. No?” Fuller said. “What is the intent of this bill?”
Senator Anne Charnock, R-Kanawha, agreed that men should not be in women’s locker rooms in the first place: “If a guy is in a women’s locker room, isn’t he trespassing?” Charnock asked.
The committee counsel was not sure.
Charnock continued, “So if I’m in the female locker room and a man walks in, I don’t care if he’s undressing or not. I don’t want him in there.
“So he’s not supposed to be there. There’s got to be something other than indecent exposure. He’s not supposed to be there whether his clothes are on or clothes are off.”
Senator Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, supported the bill but did want assurances that the coaches of girls teams would not be swept up somehow in the legislation.
“You know, a coach stepping in to the with his team, throws his jacket off, praising them or give them a butt chewing for their mistakes on the court. Want to make sure that that’s not placing that coach at risk,” Tarr said.
“But on the other side of it is that you have person who’s coming in and that it’s overt, whether it’s the head coach, assistant coach, parent or whatever that comes in and makes those females uncomfortable for how they’re undressing.”
Tarr said the legislation should reflect intent, “and I just want to make sure we’re protecting the coach that’s behaving and making sure we are penalizing those that are not.”
Despite all the questions, the committee voted 10-3 to advance the bill to the floor.
Weld suggested it will pass and then “drown under its own weight” in the House of Delegates.
“Well, now we’ve got an unconstitutional bill,” he said, “so I’m sure this will go to the House of Delegates, where hopefully — they seem pretty rational — they’ll fix the issue and pass an actual bill that actually protects somebody and is constitutional.”
Adult cabaret
Right after that, the senators took up a committee substitute for Senate Bill 590, which criminalizes adult cabaret performances on public property or where minors could view them.
The bill defines adult cabaret performances as events featuring topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators, appealing to prurient interests.
A first offense is a misdemeanor with penalties of 30 days to six months confinement, while a second offense is a felony with fines up to $25,000 and imprisonment of one to five years.
As with the earlier bill, there were some questions about terms and how they would apply.
“I’ve got some questions,” said Senator Joey Garcia, R-Marion. “What is a go-go dancer?”
The term is not defined in the legislation, said the committee counsel.
Garcia asked, “What about the Rockettes? See those at the Macy’s Day Parade on television. What if they came to West Virginia? — if they came to, let’s say, the WVU alumni parade. Would that be something that would be impermissible?”
The committee attorney concluded, “I don’t know if that’s a sexually charged performance that would appeal to the prurient interest.”
Garcia said the legislation is too loose with its terms and that people could be charged under a broad set of circumstances. “I don’t think this is a good bill. I think there’s a lot of other things we could be using our time on here,” he said.
On a voice vote, the majority of the committee voted to send the adult cabaret bill to the full Senate for consideration.