Aren't they aimed at keeping "biological men" in the men's room and out of the women's room?
If it is a criminal law, "Perv Bob" who is not a trans person can be prosecuted for going into the women's bathroom without having to prove assault or peeping. It also prevents "Pat" from going into the women's room. Granted, that is a "feature," not a "bug" for many. I will give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume that a Judge Judy may agree with said bill not because he wants to "harm" "Pat", but because he wants to prevent "Perv Bob" from being in the women's bathroom with his daughter and he cannot tell if "Pat" is "Perv Bob" or not, so "Pat" is SOL here.
I personally agree it is unfair to "Pat" and doubt it is going to keep "Perv Bob" out of the bathroom.
But why would we want to criminalize someone going into the women's room, using the restroom, minding their own business, and leaving? Why should that be a crime?
Perv Bob can ALREADY enter the women's room with Judy's daughter, even in the states with anti-trans bathroom laws, and it's already a crime if he assaults or spies on her. That's true everywhere in America, right now - if you spy on or assault someone it's a crime. Judy wants to
also make it a crime for a trans person - say Bonnie (formerly Bob) in a wig - to mind their own business and use the restroom.
It doesn't solve the problem even a little bit, it's completely unenforceable short of checking in everyone's pants, and it opens up trans people to violent assaults against them - which they're already 400% more likely to have occur than a cis person. If you think that's a bug and not a feature to the "I'll cut their dick off and shove it down their throat" crowd, you shouldn't call others naive.