Charles Krauthammer, conservative syndicated columnist and commentator for Fox News, is “puzzled” by the need for any law to limit opposite-sex use of public bathrooms. In this news segment Krauthammer said, “To me, what’s puzzling here, I really don’t understand. This is a solution in search of an issue. Do we really have an epidemic of transgenders being evil in bathrooms across the country? I haven’t heard of a single case.”

His error is a common yet surprising one. Laws of this sort aren’t primarily focused on transgendered persons, who account for less than one-half of 1 percent of American adults. They’re intended very broadly to keep men out of women’s bathrooms, and women out of men’s.

If all a man has to do to enter a women’s restroom is to say that he feels like the opposite sex, then how is any establishment going to quickly and consistently enforce a rule that biological males stick to men’s restrooms? Can you say “lawsuit goldmine?” And if the rules are fuzzy and pliable, and if businesses are wary of enforcing them for fear of getting sued, then there will be men who take advantage of the situation. And a man doesn’t have to be a violent predator for his presence in a women’s restroom to violate the privacy of the women there. He just has to show up.

Krauthammer’s error is surprising because it’s so obvious. Yet Krauthammer is hardly alone in it. Adam Erickson, blogging at Patheos.com, writes:

The logic is that our women and children will be put in danger by transgender women using the woman’s room. But here’s the thing. Do you know how many times a transgender person has attacked someone in a bathroom? 0. That’s right. It’s never happened. Ever. The transgender community is being labeled as violent sexual predators.

No, actually, the male community is being labeled as having an occasional, infrequent, yet still dangerously significant incidence of being harmful toward women, not only through direct physical violence but also through the disturbing act of voyeurism.

Media Matters quotes “expert” opinion:

All over the world, anti-trans bigots try to convince the public that trans people are somehow a “threat” in public bathrooms. We’ve seen it in New Hampshire, in Gainesville, Fl and close to home in Montgomery County, Md: Our opponents stereotype trans people as sexual predators and try to use “bathroom panic” to defeat legislation that would protect our ability to gain employment and live safe lives.

But this is completely off base. These laws don’t target transgendered men or women. How could they, as my colleague John Zmirak has asked. They “target” (the verb is a bit overwrought) men or women, period.

A pro-gay website almost gets that. Almost, but not quite. It notes that “more Republicans” have been arrested for misconduct in bathrooms than transgendered persons. Apparently that’s intended as a sting against Republicans, though the attempt falls flat by failing to compare Republicans to other social groups. Meanwhile, though, it serves as a great illustration for the very point it seems to want to contest: allowing men into women’s bathrooms isn’t wise. The writers didn’t even notice how they had undermined their own point.

Krauthammer is puzzled by the need for laws to keep transgendered persons out of the bathroom of their choice. I’m puzzled that he doesn’t realize that’s neither the main intent nor the main effect of the law. I’m puzzled that anyone would miss it.

Laws like these are simpler than that, and they’re far more important than that. Their purpose is to protect women from men and (to a lesser extent) men from women, and to protect our privacy in public restrooms and locker rooms. This is not complicated.