Commentators ask how North Carolina’s law segregating restroom, changing room and shower rooms by biological sex could be enforced. The answer is the same way laws segregating these types of facilities by sex have been enforced for generations. When people complain there is a man in the women’s room or a woman in the man’s room, a manager asked the man or woman to leave. If they refuse, the manager calls police. Police seldom make arrest, unless they deem the man or woman dangerous; they just usually escort them from the facility. In nightclubs, the waitresses or bartenders call the bouncers.
2
The idea that transgender women are "men in the little girls' room" is both harmful and factually incorrect. One of the harmful things about it is that it reinforces a false sense that LGBT people are pedophiles. Trans women are women. And many of those with the chance to undergo surgery and hormone therapy to remove their masculine attributes do so. The threatening, phantom phallus of the trans woman is a sick fantasy that the conservative right has cooked up to improve their poll numbers in an election year-- nothing more.
As for me, I am a muscular, bearded transgender man, and I can't imagine any girl or woman who would be happy to see me entering her restroom. I'm sure it would only upset everyone more if I were made to pull down my pants and prove that the state of North Carolina says I "belong" there.
As for me, I am a muscular, bearded transgender man, and I can't imagine any girl or woman who would be happy to see me entering her restroom. I'm sure it would only upset everyone more if I were made to pull down my pants and prove that the state of North Carolina says I "belong" there.
9
It seems odd to spend 40 years claiming that "gender" is distinct from (biological) sex, yelling at those who would say otherwise, and then claim that it's not different for legal purposes. This is classic having one's cake and eating it too.
You don't have to be a strict constructionist to agree that words have meanings, and if we're going change the meaning then it should be done democratically. (You know... the same way the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in the first place.)
More importantly, the elephant in the room is that the language from the left has rather suddenly shifted. The discussion used to be about "transsexuals" and those who have had sex changes (or were preparing to, under a doctor's care). For better or for worse, there was (and is) a legal framework for this. After judicial approval, the 'sex' on a birth certificate / DL / etc would be changed, and a person would legally be a different sex. In the left's glee to replace "sex" with "gender" so it could have another verbal club to hit people with, it seems to have failed to really think things through. There are 53 separate gender options listen on Facebook (at the demands of various SJW groups). Whatever "gender" (and, by extension, "trans-gender") means now, it's not self-evidently the same as what society-at-large means when it builds buildings with men's and women's restrooms.
If you want a change in the law, change the law. Stop using redefinitions to attempt to get what you want.
You don't have to be a strict constructionist to agree that words have meanings, and if we're going change the meaning then it should be done democratically. (You know... the same way the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in the first place.)
More importantly, the elephant in the room is that the language from the left has rather suddenly shifted. The discussion used to be about "transsexuals" and those who have had sex changes (or were preparing to, under a doctor's care). For better or for worse, there was (and is) a legal framework for this. After judicial approval, the 'sex' on a birth certificate / DL / etc would be changed, and a person would legally be a different sex. In the left's glee to replace "sex" with "gender" so it could have another verbal club to hit people with, it seems to have failed to really think things through. There are 53 separate gender options listen on Facebook (at the demands of various SJW groups). Whatever "gender" (and, by extension, "trans-gender") means now, it's not self-evidently the same as what society-at-large means when it builds buildings with men's and women's restrooms.
If you want a change in the law, change the law. Stop using redefinitions to attempt to get what you want.
5
It seems simple: not allowing someone to enter a particular bathroom because they have a penis or vagina is sex discrimination.
1
Another reason why the Republicans are in the trouble they're in. Who cares which bathroom they're in? Most Americans couldn't give a s*@t ! (pun intended). With all the issues facing us today - ISIS, global warming, insufficient wages, healthcare, etc - this is very far down the list. Keep it simple & make them all unisex!
Also if the Republicans had been policing the bathrooms, they would have caught some of their own doing the things they fear might happen in NC if transgender folk use the "wrong" one -- see Larry Craig & Dennis Hastert.
Also if the Republicans had been policing the bathrooms, they would have caught some of their own doing the things they fear might happen in NC if transgender folk use the "wrong" one -- see Larry Craig & Dennis Hastert.
7
"I think I'm feeling Japanese, I really think so." If people can enter any Restroom based on what they 'feel' they are, then where does that logic end? I guess Elizabeth Warren can feel she is Native American, and so can I. Can I legally check a box saying I'm Hispanic on government forms if I identify as such? If this is the case, any federal government form should not even be asking for your sex, race, religion etc, including the National Census, any form that distributes benefits, or even state driver's licenses. There is no logical end to this if we can all be and do and legally act according to what we 'believe' we are. If Sanders 'identifies' himself as a women, couldn't he run on a platform of the first women president too?
9
I would like to think Ms. Lynch has more important issues on her desk that the DOE needs to attended to. Or maybe this is just one of what will be a series of smokescreens to divert attention away from Mrs. Clinton's FBI troubles. This minor North Carolina state, not federal, issue garners all of this attention at the same time Clinton's e-mail security guru is granted immunity by the FBI. Coincidence? Doubtful.
5
So now the ever-evolving transgender narrative asserts that gender identity is sex. Of course, that is exactly the opposite of its prior stance, which held that regardless of biological sex, people could be the other gender. Except that gender was fluid. Or something.
Bizarrely incoherent. Opportunistic. Unethical. That liberal orthodoxy follows whatever trans people contend is overwhelming evidence of the power of memes. And of the terror experienced by liberals who must adopt whatever standards make them good people this year.
Critical thinking goes out the window, as now evidenced by the DOJ lawsuit contending that "gender identity" is neurobiologically essential. Let us hope that federal judges will demand incontrovertible scientific proof of that claim, which of course does not exist. Even a simple look at what is masculine and feminine in other cultures would suffice to smash this lunacy.
If the DOJ's suit succeeds, actual females will no longer have the privacy they fought for so valiantly in the twentieth century. In fact, they will no longer even exist under the law. Homosexuality will also be erased, as is happening with how gender identity is deployed in counties like Iran. Attracted to the same sex? Well then, you must be the other sex. Take these hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery - or go to jail, or worse.
Protecting trans people from discrimination does not have to mean a bizarre rewriting of biology and erasure of women and homosexuals.
Bizarrely incoherent. Opportunistic. Unethical. That liberal orthodoxy follows whatever trans people contend is overwhelming evidence of the power of memes. And of the terror experienced by liberals who must adopt whatever standards make them good people this year.
Critical thinking goes out the window, as now evidenced by the DOJ lawsuit contending that "gender identity" is neurobiologically essential. Let us hope that federal judges will demand incontrovertible scientific proof of that claim, which of course does not exist. Even a simple look at what is masculine and feminine in other cultures would suffice to smash this lunacy.
If the DOJ's suit succeeds, actual females will no longer have the privacy they fought for so valiantly in the twentieth century. In fact, they will no longer even exist under the law. Homosexuality will also be erased, as is happening with how gender identity is deployed in counties like Iran. Attracted to the same sex? Well then, you must be the other sex. Take these hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery - or go to jail, or worse.
Protecting trans people from discrimination does not have to mean a bizarre rewriting of biology and erasure of women and homosexuals.
5
I was thinking about going to North Carolina on vacation, so I need know - do you need your Birth Certificate to go the bathroom there, or can you use your passport?
2
Come on down. The wonderful state legislature has made nary a statement about enforcement or pernalty. I suspect you are safe.
POTUS will lose again trying to overstep his agenda and beliefs
1
To quote Pete Rose, "Wanna bet?"
4
The only perverts I have ever encountered in women's restrooms are straight men. If Ru Paul wants to come into a ladies' room with me, the last thing I am going to feel is threatened. Whatever straight men are afraid of should a trans woman go into a men's room is beyond my imagination. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is one of the greatest laws ever signed. That it is broad enough to apply to North Carolina today is a blessing. "All men are created equal" - we don't need a Justice Scalia-type judge to know taking this literally is inadequate and wrong.
7
Transgender individuals can be heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbians and they can be robbers, muggers, rapists and pedophiles. Transgender people commit violent crimes at about the same rate as non-transgender men and women, but the violent crime rate among transgender women is much higher than among non-transgender women. Transgender women are also much more likely to be the victim of violent crime, but granting them access to men's room would probably male things worse.
2
We encourage you to seek out Ru Paul's substantive opinion on gender identity. It is not favorable to the current theory and practice of transgenderism.
2
I know several people in the black community who are actually extremely offended that the liberal media is trying to equate transgenders to the civil rights struggles of African Americans.
They argue that these are in fact two completely separate issues: one being the recognition of a human being as a human being while the other is trying to force people into saying that a male is in fact a female - which is simply not true.
They argue that these are in fact two completely separate issues: one being the recognition of a human being as a human being while the other is trying to force people into saying that a male is in fact a female - which is simply not true.
6
I'm no expert on transgender issues and don't feel the need to be. I'm a cis-gender 66-year-old woman. However, I don't see what the problem is with transgender people using the bathroom that matches their sexual identity.
I look at it in practical terms. Women's bathrooms have stalls, and so do men's. You can take care of biz in a stall. Nobody sees what's going on in there, so why would they care? I care about people leaving the stall neat and appreciate a courtesy flush - issues that are not connected to trans people using the head. Simple common courtesy.
People who are concerned that a transgender (or a male claiming to be a transgender who isn't) who was born male will use the women's restroom and take the opportunity to rape or harass or grope women? If someone's that messed up, I assume they'll do that anyway.
But they'd be a fool to do it in a crowded women's restroom...they'd probably have to be taken out of there on a gurney after the other women got through with them. In a women's restroom with just one born-female woman using it, you might have a problem with a violent born-male. But is a would-be rapist going to be deterred from restroom rape NOW because that person respects current/traditional bathroom use rules? I doubt it.
So I don't get what the problem is, in practical terms.
I look at it in practical terms. Women's bathrooms have stalls, and so do men's. You can take care of biz in a stall. Nobody sees what's going on in there, so why would they care? I care about people leaving the stall neat and appreciate a courtesy flush - issues that are not connected to trans people using the head. Simple common courtesy.
People who are concerned that a transgender (or a male claiming to be a transgender who isn't) who was born male will use the women's restroom and take the opportunity to rape or harass or grope women? If someone's that messed up, I assume they'll do that anyway.
But they'd be a fool to do it in a crowded women's restroom...they'd probably have to be taken out of there on a gurney after the other women got through with them. In a women's restroom with just one born-female woman using it, you might have a problem with a violent born-male. But is a would-be rapist going to be deterred from restroom rape NOW because that person respects current/traditional bathroom use rules? I doubt it.
So I don't get what the problem is, in practical terms.
9
Most LGBT are unable to understand where heterosexual singles and parents are coming from. There are real and serious concerns that are valid but you all only respond with name calling and insults. We do most EVERYthing with kids in tow. Women are weaker than men, period. We can be easily overpowered by any man and you all expect rapists and pedophiles NOT to take advantage of open policies like they are in their RIGHT minds. What sex offender is in his/her RIGHT mind?
2
It not just restrooms. It's also changing rooms and shower rooms. However, many women have sexual modesty issue with using a toilet separated by a few inches from one being used by a mail. How do you think Muslim women who wear scarves over their heads to conceal their hair in the presence of men would feel about sharing restrooms, changing rooms and showers with men? We have more Muslims than we have transgender people. Transgender women are men and the violent crime rate is much higher among transgender women than other women. Lots of guys get beaten up by transgender prostitutes. Transgender women have a size, weight and strength advantage over real women.
4
This belief system imposed the LGBTQ (which is actually a very powerful hate group bent on attacking anyone who disagrees with their agendas) is detrimentally harmful to the transgender community. You should be aware that suicide rates among transgenders are some of the highest in the nation. After undergoing surgery, the death rates are around twenty times higher than the national average. In fact, in the 1970’s Johns Hopkins University abandoned ‘gender’ changing surgeries because their research showed extremely damaging results to the mental and emotional health of the population. As you see, this is a belief system that is extremely harmful both psychologically and physically.
5
North Carolina's restroom legislation is both fair and sensible.
Firstly, this allows for protection of women/girls from sexual predators who would pretend to be transgender in order to enter female facilities and sexually harass/exploit them. Such incidents have already happened on several occasions, which to many is reason enough for such legislation.
Secondly, this allows for protection of children not to be exposed to such an emotionally confusing and mentally damaging ideologies against their families’ values. For a young girl to have to enter a public restroom with a grown man believing himself to be a women – this is traumatizing, confusing, and morally wrong regardless of any religious affiliations.
Thirdly, this law is the first step in the necessary direction in helping the transgender community by finally speaking the truth. If a man’s body is mutilated and his extremities are cut off, he is still a male. If a woman believes herself to be a man, she is still a female. Gender is not based on feelings but on human anatomy. This assertion is not hatred or discrimination of any form. This is simply fact.
Firstly, this allows for protection of women/girls from sexual predators who would pretend to be transgender in order to enter female facilities and sexually harass/exploit them. Such incidents have already happened on several occasions, which to many is reason enough for such legislation.
Secondly, this allows for protection of children not to be exposed to such an emotionally confusing and mentally damaging ideologies against their families’ values. For a young girl to have to enter a public restroom with a grown man believing himself to be a women – this is traumatizing, confusing, and morally wrong regardless of any religious affiliations.
Thirdly, this law is the first step in the necessary direction in helping the transgender community by finally speaking the truth. If a man’s body is mutilated and his extremities are cut off, he is still a male. If a woman believes herself to be a man, she is still a female. Gender is not based on feelings but on human anatomy. This assertion is not hatred or discrimination of any form. This is simply fact.
5
People who suffer from gender dysphoria are not delusional. They realize that there a mismatch between their perception of their sexuality and their physical reality. This mismatch—not discrimination—is the primary source of their emotional and psychological distress, which leads to higher rates of depression and suicides. (A 2009 study by the Case Western Reserve Department of Psychiatry found 90 percent of transgender individuals studied had at least one other significant form of psychopathology.) The contention that permission to use the men’s room or women’s rooms will provide much therapeutic value is dubious. It is likely to have the opposite effect, since transgender people will often be greeted with sneers and animosity. Rather than pretending humans are among the species that can change sex after birth or that gender identify determines sex, we should be working harder to prevent gender dysphoria from occurring, which might become possible with the continued unraveling of the human genome. We should separate bathroom bills from other bills that protect LGBTs from discrimination in housing and employment, and we should pass laws requiring venues to provide adequate numbers of unisex bathrooms.
3
They're "not delusional" but they exhibit "other psychopathology"? What?
When Salem's "witches" were being hanged (or pressed to death), no one was quite sure whether they were delusional or psychopathological either, in spite of the statements of accused who freely admitted to practices that Puritans called "witchcraft". They just wanted them gone.
Law enforcement has for a long time adequately demonstrated its ability to control sexual adventurers such as certain US Senators frequenting public restrooms.
The State of North Carolina has no business expanding government power to control which bathroom an individual chooses to use, and to assign genders to individuals.
When Salem's "witches" were being hanged (or pressed to death), no one was quite sure whether they were delusional or psychopathological either, in spite of the statements of accused who freely admitted to practices that Puritans called "witchcraft". They just wanted them gone.
Law enforcement has for a long time adequately demonstrated its ability to control sexual adventurers such as certain US Senators frequenting public restrooms.
The State of North Carolina has no business expanding government power to control which bathroom an individual chooses to use, and to assign genders to individuals.
2
I think you're trying to be helpful, but if I understand correctly, you are contending:
1. That the way to reduce sneers and animosity toward transgender people is require them to use the restroom which may be most at odds with their physical appearance.
2. That correlation = causation; that the depression that many transgender people may feel precedes any adverse societal reaction.
3. That the intent of a transgender person in using the restroom of the biologically opposite sex is to seek a broader psycho-therapeutic effect rather than simply emptying a full bladder in the facility that comports most with their outward appearance.
4. That transgender people should simply “hold it” or not leave home until either genomics catches up and children of the next generation can be genetically altered for their own good and so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities or until unisex bathrooms can be constructed nationwide.
1. That the way to reduce sneers and animosity toward transgender people is require them to use the restroom which may be most at odds with their physical appearance.
2. That correlation = causation; that the depression that many transgender people may feel precedes any adverse societal reaction.
3. That the intent of a transgender person in using the restroom of the biologically opposite sex is to seek a broader psycho-therapeutic effect rather than simply emptying a full bladder in the facility that comports most with their outward appearance.
4. That transgender people should simply “hold it” or not leave home until either genomics catches up and children of the next generation can be genetically altered for their own good and so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities or until unisex bathrooms can be constructed nationwide.
2
Sequel, are you aware of the primary paraphilia reported by convicted sex offenders in this country?
The Atlantic has a good article on past legal precedent including a Scalia opinion that might be a good supplement for the discussion here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/a-scalia-decision-se...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/a-scalia-decision-se...
The arguments in the Atlantic article are absurd and not relevant to the case. The Justice Department does not contend that North Carolina discriminates by segregating toilets, changing rooms and showers according to sex. It contends transgender women or actually women and that transgender men are actually men and that state must treat them according. The Justice Department complaint flatly states that ““A transgender man’s sex is male and a transgender woman’s sex is female.” The issue is whether gender identity overrides hormones, chromosomes, external genitalia and interior reproductive organs. In other words, does perception override reality?
1
Could we learn to have compassion and kindness for people? The sexual spectrum is wide - gender is not always binary. The World Health Organization has some terrific information posted on this, see: http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/
Transgender is not a "choice" - the only choice is whether or not to be true to ones' self. People should not be punished or discriminated against for that.
Transgender is not a "choice" - the only choice is whether or not to be true to ones' self. People should not be punished or discriminated against for that.
9
By your logic(?) a psychotic murderer might not be acting on choice but rather is exercising his right to be true to himself. Should we argue against such a person being imprisoned for just being himself?
You make a misleading assertion. While it is true that gender is not always binary in the animal kingdom, it is a scientific fact that gender is binary in human race. In fact, it has never been witnessed that a male physically changes his gender through nature.
In fact gender and 'gender identity' are actually two distinct terms. The former is based entirely on physical data, that being the human reproductive system associated to an individual at birth. The second, however, is based on one's mental state at a certain moment in time - which changes and fluctuates with time.
Bathrooms are universally segregated according to gender and gender (not 'gender identity') is segregated based on human anatomy (which is binary in the human race with the rare occasions in which one fetus absorbs another resulting in two reproductive systems, and even then only one is functional and the other is simply removed).
There is simply no discrimination in stating facts, and the facts are below:
- If say a man's body is disfigured and his extremities are cut off he is still a male.
- If say a woman believes herself to be a man 'trapped' in a woman's body, she is still a female.
Note that there is no hatred or discrimination in facts.
In fact gender and 'gender identity' are actually two distinct terms. The former is based entirely on physical data, that being the human reproductive system associated to an individual at birth. The second, however, is based on one's mental state at a certain moment in time - which changes and fluctuates with time.
Bathrooms are universally segregated according to gender and gender (not 'gender identity') is segregated based on human anatomy (which is binary in the human race with the rare occasions in which one fetus absorbs another resulting in two reproductive systems, and even then only one is functional and the other is simply removed).
There is simply no discrimination in stating facts, and the facts are below:
- If say a man's body is disfigured and his extremities are cut off he is still a male.
- If say a woman believes herself to be a man 'trapped' in a woman's body, she is still a female.
Note that there is no hatred or discrimination in facts.
2
It is by definition a choice. It is artificial. There are no physiological differences between normal people and them. The only difference is that they are crazy people who think they are something they are not. That is classified as a disease. There have been studies on them by people searching to prove their existence by the data convinced them that was a fraud.
1
Mulling whether an act from 1964 applies in this day and age because the drafters never intended it to cover someone?
When, if we can ponder that, are we going to ponder whether a piece of a document written in 1787 and imagined to cover muzzle loading muskets can cover AK-47's?
When, if we can ponder that, are we going to ponder whether a piece of a document written in 1787 and imagined to cover muzzle loading muskets can cover AK-47's?
10
I have read the bill. It contains measures that bespeak all kinds of ill will towards people who may seek reparations from employers, regardless of gender issues. I agree, therefore, with others who have posted here that this bathroom issue is a distraction and foil to pass a bill that is in it sum, much more egregious and, unfortunately, enforceable.
I think it is fair to say that human beings have for as long as they have existed had some concerns with their excretions. Also fair to say their sexuality, bodily privacy, identity and so forth are part of each human's life and experience.
That being said, the bathroom thing is very typical of an issue that seems to resonate with the rural evangelically infected south.
In the southeastern United States, where I reside, the acceptance of intrusion and hypocrisy by the State and commercial interests, coupled with the required self destruction and ignorance on the part of the sometimes voting public is absolutely laughable. It's also heartbreaking and soul destroying.
A population which, regardless of ethnicity, regularly leaves astronomical numbers of children growing up out of wedlock, has huge instances of domestic violence, has an appalling low literacy rate, falls itself victim to a fanatical, hugely marketed identity of itself as somehow "rugged," "rebel,"
"hospitable,"and so forth, and continues to ignore these facts and follow and vote for whoever shouts loudest their own idiotic fantasies.
I love it.
I think it is fair to say that human beings have for as long as they have existed had some concerns with their excretions. Also fair to say their sexuality, bodily privacy, identity and so forth are part of each human's life and experience.
That being said, the bathroom thing is very typical of an issue that seems to resonate with the rural evangelically infected south.
In the southeastern United States, where I reside, the acceptance of intrusion and hypocrisy by the State and commercial interests, coupled with the required self destruction and ignorance on the part of the sometimes voting public is absolutely laughable. It's also heartbreaking and soul destroying.
A population which, regardless of ethnicity, regularly leaves astronomical numbers of children growing up out of wedlock, has huge instances of domestic violence, has an appalling low literacy rate, falls itself victim to a fanatical, hugely marketed identity of itself as somehow "rugged," "rebel,"
"hospitable,"and so forth, and continues to ignore these facts and follow and vote for whoever shouts loudest their own idiotic fantasies.
I love it.
6
If you traveled outside your home state of North Carolina you would notice that all other states have public restrooms reserved for men only or form women only. Even the National Capitol has men’s rooms and women’s rooms. Has this really destroyed you soul?
2
When I was an intern at NC Memorial Hospital in 1967, we had several unisex bathrooms with working door latches/locks. Not a problem until this gang of ultra right evangelicals came along and used the issue as a Trojan horse to slide through far more dangerous and exploitative legislation. Simply dirty politics! Jesse, where are you when we actually need you?
I find it shocking that someone possessing your degree of erudition and enlightenment would choose to live in such a benighted area as the American Southeast.
1
The most striking thing in this discussion is the way so many people (on all sides) take polar positions, demonize opponents, simplify and misrepresent opposing positions, refuse to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of people who disagree with them, think in contemporary slogans and clichés, and engage in name-calling. (I don’t expect to get “recommends” for saying this.)
Perhaps it is because the universities teach “critical thinking” and not deliberative reasoning. Perhaps it is because academic departments in the social sciences and humanities have become focused on social activism and social and political goals, which requires, of course, that people not with the current program be sidelined (see Kristof). Perhaps it is because the universities have come to respect only diversity that is not true diversity of opinion. Whatever it is, the educations of many have evidently gone amiss.
It is difficult for me to believe that it is impossible to find a solution to this problem--one that fully recognizes the rights and dignity of trans people and also addresses the sincere concerns of people who want to protect the privacy and dignity that women and girls now enjoy in separate locker rooms and bathrooms.
Perhaps it is because the universities teach “critical thinking” and not deliberative reasoning. Perhaps it is because academic departments in the social sciences and humanities have become focused on social activism and social and political goals, which requires, of course, that people not with the current program be sidelined (see Kristof). Perhaps it is because the universities have come to respect only diversity that is not true diversity of opinion. Whatever it is, the educations of many have evidently gone amiss.
It is difficult for me to believe that it is impossible to find a solution to this problem--one that fully recognizes the rights and dignity of trans people and also addresses the sincere concerns of people who want to protect the privacy and dignity that women and girls now enjoy in separate locker rooms and bathrooms.
11
Whatever happened to the "science based" leadership from the left? It doesn't take a lot of science classes to figure out one's sex.
11
Actually, the biology of sex is a lot more complicated that you might think (I teach science classes about this). The sex assigned at birth is based solely on the morphology of external genitalia. But, the process of sexual differentiation allows for divergence at multiple levels, such that chromosomal sex does not always comport with gonadal sex or external morphology. Gender identity, likewise, may or may not comport with expectations based on external morphology.
7
When it comes to gender dysphoria, the medical and psychiatric communities agree that gender identity does not comport with reality. There is nothing abnormal about transgender people hormones, chromosome, external genitalia or reproductive organs. The problem lies with the portion of their brains that govern physical perception. They perceive themselves as female when they are male or male with they are female. Anorexia makes patients perceive themselves as fat, but anorexics are not fat.
This is what you teach? That the overwhelming majority of sexually dimorphic humans are classified as male and female in error? That their external genitalia does not conform to the rest of these clear biological sex distinctions that manifest in our reproductive capability? That if you look inside, you won't find those corresponding organs and other functions?
Surely not. That would be grounds for your being fired. Let's hope your curriculum people are reading here.
Gender identity, by contrast, is a social construct. Smashing it seems line a fine idea since, you know, it's a caste system. The trans project as currently constituted reinforces the cage of gender rather than liberating us from it.
Surely not. That would be grounds for your being fired. Let's hope your curriculum people are reading here.
Gender identity, by contrast, is a social construct. Smashing it seems line a fine idea since, you know, it's a caste system. The trans project as currently constituted reinforces the cage of gender rather than liberating us from it.
1
Can I vote if I believe I have a citizen identity or citizen preference? I really, badly want to....
9
I've got this image of Ms. Jenner undressed and showering in the women's locker room in my YMCA. And I (always too mouthy for my own good) say, "Eww, gross."
Just saying.
Just saying.
11
Mr. Jenner. He's still not a woman.
3
Cultural imperialism is a good thing when the victims are white people from flyover states, right?
8
Amen. The "compassionate" left is showing its true colors with this issue and with the characterizations of white, working class Trump supporters.
2
Where does this eventually go? That there is just one locker room, and everyone changes in it? If this law affects title IX, does that mean that men can now compete on women's teams, or that teams are no longer based on sex/ gender?
7
In most parts of Western Europe there is only one locker room that accommodates both sexes. I was in Paris last year at a new swimming pool where there was only one changing area, with personal changing rooms, nothing was gender specific. Most of the public restrooms are not gender specific. It all works terrifically, this issue seems to be uniquely American.
5
Peaches, why yes it does. Look up the recent rules issued by the International Olympic Committee. And the case of a 50 year old 6'6" trans woman who played for a woman's college team in California. The coach booted another woman off the team to make it happen.
Most multiple occupancy restrooms, changing areas and shower rooms in Europe are reserved for men only or women only.
When confronted with absence of locker, shower, and/or toilet facilities in a traditionally male workplace it takes FOREVER to hit upon the solution (because of all the hyperventilation over what might, but never has, happened).
Divide the room(s) into cubicles (if it's good for the workplace it ought to be good enough for the bathroom, shower, locker facilities). Put a lock on the inside of the door and voila - the world is civilized once more.
Divide the room(s) into cubicles (if it's good for the workplace it ought to be good enough for the bathroom, shower, locker facilities). Put a lock on the inside of the door and voila - the world is civilized once more.
1
good morning.
2
North Carolina is a job creator. Why, thousands are applying for the position of bathroom access inspector.
2
People. People. People. Please notice that the "bathroom" issue, while it has attracted so much attention, is a smokescreen for the other insidious provisions of HB2. (Others have noted this in the space.) Employees can no longer sue for Title VII employment discrimination in NC state courts. And more.
PAY ATTENTION. This is about a power grab by the Republican legislature, that has majority power for the first time in 140 years, and blatant protection for its business constituency. There is no threat from transgender use of bathrooms. Like there is not voter fraud. But the state passes unconstitutional voting restrictions anyway. This is a travesty all around. And let's hope Michael Jordan follows through with moving the Charlotte Hornets. That will get the attention of folks in NC.
And if we are really concerned about our 12 year old sons and daughters in bathrooms, we need to ban Catholic priests and convicted sex offenders from bathrooms. Not transgender people.
PAY ATTENTION. This is about a power grab by the Republican legislature, that has majority power for the first time in 140 years, and blatant protection for its business constituency. There is no threat from transgender use of bathrooms. Like there is not voter fraud. But the state passes unconstitutional voting restrictions anyway. This is a travesty all around. And let's hope Michael Jordan follows through with moving the Charlotte Hornets. That will get the attention of folks in NC.
And if we are really concerned about our 12 year old sons and daughters in bathrooms, we need to ban Catholic priests and convicted sex offenders from bathrooms. Not transgender people.
22
Public bathrooms in North Carolina were segregated by sex when Democrats controlled the state legislature, as it did between the end of Reconstruction and 2010
I have a simple question. How does NC propose to enforce this law?
6
That question has been asked to every state that has issued similar laws, none have been able to give an answer, let alone a concrete answer.
2
The law will be enforced just as it’s always been enforced. When someone complains that a man is in the women’s room or that a woman is in the men’s room, a manager asks the man or woman to leave. If they refuse, the manager calls police. Police seldom make arrests, unless they consider the person dangerous. They just escort the person out of the building. In nightclubs, the bartenders usually just call the bouncers. I had an acquaintance who was escorted out of a nightclub because he followed a pretty blonde into the women’s room. He claims he was too drunk to remember the incident. Most people have accidently walked into a men’s room or women’s room. The men normally turn around when they see there are no urinals while the women turn around when they see there are urinals.
2
All this FAKE issue is doing is distracting people from the fact that much of congress is also up for election this year. It is distraction so that people forget economic, education, infrastructure, and military issues. Transgender people have been using the bathroom of their choice ever since bathrooms have been around. Just because you can't always tell what their birth gender was, doesn't mean they weren't there. When this dog an pony show is over I hope it backfires on them and it brings voters who might have not voted to vote these bigots out of office.
7
If, as North Carolina requires, you can only use the restroom designated for the gender on your birth certificate; what happens or men and women who have sexual reassignment surgery?
4
Those who undergo sex reassignment surgery usually have their birth certificates and other government ID amended to reflect the new sex "assignment".
That's why this whole thing is a non-issue designed to eliminate single sex spaces and allow access to anyone who "identifies" as the other sex.
That's why this whole thing is a non-issue designed to eliminate single sex spaces and allow access to anyone who "identifies" as the other sex.
There are few things as unambiguous as a persons sex. Public bathrooms are designed based on inherent differences. Why is it that 99.99% of the population is required to submit to the .001% who are somehow confused about their sex?
10
I always find this argument really funny. Allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their gender identity does not alter anyone's bathroom use in anyway. It does not require people to do anything other than maybe respect the dignity of another.
Oh and as for the 99.99% to .001% [regardless of the statistical nonsense] Madison warned about the tyranny of the majority - that's why.
Oh and as for the 99.99% to .001% [regardless of the statistical nonsense] Madison warned about the tyranny of the majority - that's why.
1
tempest in a tearoom!
this is about the rural conservatives of NC having a fit about things happening in their "big" cities, which they are trying to force back into the 19th century,where they're comfortable at somebody else's expense.
this is about the rural conservatives of NC having a fit about things happening in their "big" cities, which they are trying to force back into the 19th century,where they're comfortable at somebody else's expense.
6
Binary gender laws will not work. Enforcement aside, how is a mother allowed to change the diapers of a male baby in the female restroom? We should be moving to a sexless, human society; not a medieval society where genders are separated and women are subjugated.
6
Female-only spaces protect women, not subjugate us. Don't speak for or over women if you care about our human rights.
4
98% of people in America prefer the way things are. Who are the LGBT to tell the rest of the whole society that WE need to change? YOU all are unhappy. YOU all are dissatisfied and research shows that even when you feel you are accepted YOU all are STILL not happy. Men and women compliment each other. A mother changing her child's diaper is in no way sexual or threatening to other women. An illness in the mind cannot be legislated while also putting the vulnerable in our society in danger to suit the whims of a few.
I suspect restroom use by gender "identity" would poll somewhat favorably. It's when these laws start mandating sexual integration of boys and girls in the locker rooms and showers of our public schools that will invariably to a common sense revolt...even if it only ends by parents with means pulling their children out of public schools and leaving them broke.
5
Yes, the "issue" has shifted to locker rooms now that the initial fear around restrooms has been shown to be patently ridiculous. Does anyone deny that this non-problem only came to be debated because the Duggar family raised it and conservatives championed it as a hot-button for the election? I don't think Republican leaders (other than the theocrat Cruz) personally care about race issues, gay marriage, abortion, and transgender people in bathrooms. But they sure know it will whip up bigotry for the ballot box.
1
There are only two sexes, male and female. How would a man know that he would rather be a woman.? What is the difference between a man and a woman except for anatomy? Intellectually men and women are equal. The difference in anatomy is for reproduction purposes only. The part that matters, the mind or soul, is the same in men and women so live with what you have been assigned.
4
Conservatives and evangelicals in North Carolina all agree with each other that their position is correct. You can see the shock evident in their faces as they react to the global media feeding frenzy this has generated. If they were smart, they would retreat and live to fight another day. And after election day that is probably exactly what they will do. By pursuing this in court it will lay the ground work of precedent to extend protections to the people they contend they need protection from. In other words, they are going to do more to further the cause of legal equality for transgender people than anyone in history.
2
I am still astounded that there are people in a "civilized society" who actively work to harm those who have been dealt a complicated life due to their genetic make-up and the collective society we live in.
Are we that close to chickens, that we need a legislature to set up a pecking order, and essentially identify the low pecking order that we can all bully.
Would these people who legislate be comfortable in India, and we can identify them as untouchables.
It seems that the Civil War and the fact that what they did to blacks for hundreds of years before and after has made no impression on their psyche.
They just want a new group of victims.
On my next drive south, I will be sure to not stop in this state to either buy anything or use the bathroom.
Are we that close to chickens, that we need a legislature to set up a pecking order, and essentially identify the low pecking order that we can all bully.
Would these people who legislate be comfortable in India, and we can identify them as untouchables.
It seems that the Civil War and the fact that what they did to blacks for hundreds of years before and after has made no impression on their psyche.
They just want a new group of victims.
On my next drive south, I will be sure to not stop in this state to either buy anything or use the bathroom.
2
There may well be people who want to harm trans people. But make no mistake, the people harmed by a new legal definition of "gender identity" as equivalent to sex will be females and homosexuals.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that trans people are "dealt a complicated life due to their genetic make-up." We now get to see if federal judges will make law based on science or fashion.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that trans people are "dealt a complicated life due to their genetic make-up." We now get to see if federal judges will make law based on science or fashion.
1
This whole issue is preposterous and yet another made up wedge issue by the radical right to whip up their religious base into a rabid froth.
The whole thing is utterly silly and this NC law cannot be enforced.
We have been sharing our public restrooms with transgender people forever- and didn't know it nor did we care.
If a person born male is now identified as female, dresses as female- wouldn't it cause much more of a stir if this person dressed as a female go into the men's room? Moreover, if that person has had the surgery to actually change her gender to female- then she no longer has male genitalia and is in fact a woman and should be able to use the ladies' rest room.
This is a non issue and no one with an ounce of common sense cares worries about this. Just another wedge issue designed to trap the ignorant into voting Republican in red states.
Sorry- but we have much more important issues to worry about- like climate change which the rabid right GOP has not mentioned as a problem while there are devastating tornadoes occurring every day in the bible belt. Yes, go ahead red states- continue to vote solid GOP while you're running for your lives in front of the latest flood and tornado- that makes perfect sense.
The level of stupidity and misplaced priorities is really unbelievable.
The whole thing is utterly silly and this NC law cannot be enforced.
We have been sharing our public restrooms with transgender people forever- and didn't know it nor did we care.
If a person born male is now identified as female, dresses as female- wouldn't it cause much more of a stir if this person dressed as a female go into the men's room? Moreover, if that person has had the surgery to actually change her gender to female- then she no longer has male genitalia and is in fact a woman and should be able to use the ladies' rest room.
This is a non issue and no one with an ounce of common sense cares worries about this. Just another wedge issue designed to trap the ignorant into voting Republican in red states.
Sorry- but we have much more important issues to worry about- like climate change which the rabid right GOP has not mentioned as a problem while there are devastating tornadoes occurring every day in the bible belt. Yes, go ahead red states- continue to vote solid GOP while you're running for your lives in front of the latest flood and tornado- that makes perfect sense.
The level of stupidity and misplaced priorities is really unbelievable.
6
I find it interesting – and alarming - that so many of the comments here demonstrate basic misunderstandings of the American constitutional system. Some corrections are in order:
• There is nothing “arrogant” about the executive interpreting how the statute applies in a given case. In fact, that is their job and duty. (You can always appeal to the judiciary if you think they got it wrong, as NC is doing.)
• There is nothing “radical” in the DOJ’s interpretation in this case. Whether you agree with it or not, it is based upon and follows logically from a series of regulatory determinations and judicial decisions. (On the contrary: To reject that precedent and argue for an alternate interpretation now would, in fact, be radical.)
• “Plain language” is not clear in this case or determinative in legal interpretation. Plain language reading is one tool of many for understanding a legal text. A reading of this thread shows one of its shortcomings: There is no unitary consensus meaning for the word “sex.”
• There is nothing “settled” or “simple” about the meanings of the terms “sex” and “gender.” They are used in overlapping and diverse ways colloquially and in different technical and scholarly fields. More to the point, they have often been used as synonyms in legislation and jurisprudence for decades now.
• There is nothing “arrogant” about the executive interpreting how the statute applies in a given case. In fact, that is their job and duty. (You can always appeal to the judiciary if you think they got it wrong, as NC is doing.)
• There is nothing “radical” in the DOJ’s interpretation in this case. Whether you agree with it or not, it is based upon and follows logically from a series of regulatory determinations and judicial decisions. (On the contrary: To reject that precedent and argue for an alternate interpretation now would, in fact, be radical.)
• “Plain language” is not clear in this case or determinative in legal interpretation. Plain language reading is one tool of many for understanding a legal text. A reading of this thread shows one of its shortcomings: There is no unitary consensus meaning for the word “sex.”
• There is nothing “settled” or “simple” about the meanings of the terms “sex” and “gender.” They are used in overlapping and diverse ways colloquially and in different technical and scholarly fields. More to the point, they have often been used as synonyms in legislation and jurisprudence for decades now.
1
Last month, the Fourth Circuit Court found that “The [Department of Education] regulations implementing Title IX permit the provision of “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.” However, the court noted that, “Although the regulation may refer unambiguously to males and females, it is silent as to how a school should determine whether a transgender individual is a male or female for the purpose of access to sex-segregated restrooms.” The answer, of course, is that the sex of a transgender individual should be determine the same way the sex of other individuals is determined, by chromosome, external sex organs and reproductive organs.
Exactly.
This effort to equate sex with gender, in conflict with the English language definition of both, reminds of the word "racism".
The legal and dictionary definitions don't provide qualifiers for who's making the statement. So whites and black can be racist with statements like "white/black people are inherently inferior".
However people who espouse "social justice" argue that people who don't have institutional power cannot be racist. Egro, only whites in the US can be racist since only they have institutional power.
This convenient change in meaning allows some people to get away with words and actions that would get a white person fired from his job, or expelled from a school.
So now the justice department wants the same revisionism of the word "sex" to mean something other than the technical and scientific word it is. May I do the same when it comes to buying pot? I can argue it's not a drug, but food.
The legal and dictionary definitions don't provide qualifiers for who's making the statement. So whites and black can be racist with statements like "white/black people are inherently inferior".
However people who espouse "social justice" argue that people who don't have institutional power cannot be racist. Egro, only whites in the US can be racist since only they have institutional power.
This convenient change in meaning allows some people to get away with words and actions that would get a white person fired from his job, or expelled from a school.
So now the justice department wants the same revisionism of the word "sex" to mean something other than the technical and scientific word it is. May I do the same when it comes to buying pot? I can argue it's not a drug, but food.
3
Yes. It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is. /lawyerspeak
This issue has nothing to do with access to bathrooms. Nobody has been denied access. There will be no bathroom monitors. It's all about having the government endorse the idea that individuals can decide whether they are male or female. It's about affirming the progressive fantasy of the blank slate--the idea that all human beings are interchangeable and defined only by culture and political rights. It is an attempt to secede from nature and biology into identity politics. It is an attempt to force people to accept other people's subjectivity as objective fact, even when the body of evidence is clear as day that it isn't.
7
Why don't just make a third bathroom?
4
I'm from Britain so maybe don't have a deep understanding of the law. But surely if the constitution prevents you from segregating bathrooms by race, it also prevents you segregating bathrooms by sex (even using the Conservative definition of the word)?
In other words gender identity doesn't need to come into it. Per the constitution all public facilities must be gender neutral as well as race neutral. Which makes sense, as we now realize both are binary social concepts not binary biological ones.
In other words gender identity doesn't need to come into it. Per the constitution all public facilities must be gender neutral as well as race neutral. Which makes sense, as we now realize both are binary social concepts not binary biological ones.
12
We live in a culture that objectifies woman bodies, but also casts mens' bodies as predatory and threatening. Both are problematic, and these double standards that underlie many of the conversations about gender and sex might be our best opportunity to critique the public discourse. They are an opportunity to see these issues in a fuller light by challenging those of us on the left and those of us on the right, to radically rethink how we discriminate against sexual stereotypes and perpetuate double standards, across the board.
This double standard; the male body is seen as inherently threatening and the female body, typically presented as an object to be conquered (or protected) by the viewer's (often male) gaze, are two sides of the same coin.
For example, those identifying as men cannot get into top tier schools like Smith and Weselley, which currently also have discriminatory policies (all Ivies have been coed for over 40 years now). Hopefully, this public discourse around bathroom breaks will break down some of these other barriers too. They must, if we are to avoid perpetuating the very double standards that are so often the object of our critique.
This double standard; the male body is seen as inherently threatening and the female body, typically presented as an object to be conquered (or protected) by the viewer's (often male) gaze, are two sides of the same coin.
For example, those identifying as men cannot get into top tier schools like Smith and Weselley, which currently also have discriminatory policies (all Ivies have been coed for over 40 years now). Hopefully, this public discourse around bathroom breaks will break down some of these other barriers too. They must, if we are to avoid perpetuating the very double standards that are so often the object of our critique.
6
As transgenders progress through the process of change they often change their birth certificates, as well. How would North Carolina treat those folks? Who is intending to enforce this silly rule? Will you need an original birth certificate to get into a public bathroom in North Carolina from now on? What is this world coming to? Live and let live.
4
The great issue of our time, transsexuals in the bathroom. Only in a debased, debauched country is this even an issue up for debate but that's liberals for you. They won't be happy until all the structures of society are dismantled and everyone operates on the "feels".
12
There wouldn't be much debate on this if the conservatives didn't weigh in. It can't all be "the fault of the liberals".
2
Isn't it about time someone introduced an addition to the "protected classes - "sexual orientation"? Why has this not entered into our national discourse and why has no one even (to my knowledge) considered it before now? Of course with out current congress, it isn't going to fly. Vote for the right people this Fall and let's get it right this time around.
3
I think many people would agree, however gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing.
2
Yes. Good point. I know I wasn't being precise in wording -- just trying to make a point. Both wordings and/or LGBT would need to be worked out for legal precision.
Public toilets can be anxiety producing places. Smells, sounds, danger, desire, revulsion, insecurity, self-consciousness. Just to name a few. Added to this potent mix, we are now faced with fevered sex obsessed bigots who want to check not only your genitals but also your birth certificate before you can go to the toilet.
15
Yet another reminder that right-wingers' obsession with states' rights is just conservative code for "We want the right to take rights away from whomever we want."
15
When you fly on commercial airlines, do you use the mens' room or the womens'? If the plane is over North Carolina, does it matter that those bathrooms are unisex? BTW, no one was born "unisex", so I guess such all such bathrooms are off-limits in NC.
If my grandson uses the mens' room, am I comfortable with the idea that someone with every appearance of a woman, and perhaps the sex change operation to go with it, is required by law to walk into his proximity because she was born male. Will I have to explain to a 4 year old that some people are so filled with fear and hate that they pass weird, illogical laws without thinking through the consequences.
I love NC, from OBX, Beaufort and Atlantic Beach to Research Triangle to Lake Junaluska and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The people, the music, the BBQ, the history, the scenic beauty, and many of my friends are there. But some of the hateful laws and politics will insure that we vacation elsewhere for the time being, unlike our 10 previous vacations there.
If my grandson uses the mens' room, am I comfortable with the idea that someone with every appearance of a woman, and perhaps the sex change operation to go with it, is required by law to walk into his proximity because she was born male. Will I have to explain to a 4 year old that some people are so filled with fear and hate that they pass weird, illogical laws without thinking through the consequences.
I love NC, from OBX, Beaufort and Atlantic Beach to Research Triangle to Lake Junaluska and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The people, the music, the BBQ, the history, the scenic beauty, and many of my friends are there. But some of the hateful laws and politics will insure that we vacation elsewhere for the time being, unlike our 10 previous vacations there.
16
The North Carolina law applies only to multiple-occupancy bathroom in public school and building operated by state agencies. The law requires public school and state agencies to provide unisex bathroom upon request.
There is too much quibbling going on. Discrimination that prohibits any person from enjoying the full range of their constitutional rights and "pursuit of happiness is wrong; PERIOD!!! Whether biologically equipped at birth as male or female is irrelevant. It has become apparent to our society that there are people that feel trapped by the biological equipment of their birth and would prefer to live out their life as a member of the opposite sex. So be it. That is their right. If that upsets those with too many green persimmons in their diet, that is too bad.
6
Discrimination based on sex is prohibited. Sex is our biological anatomy, gender is our identity. Taking the class of male-identified people... if you allow those with male sex into the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity but not those with female sex, then you are discriminating based on sex.
On a practical level, NC's law will be most harmful for transgender youth, who have high suicide rates because they are routinely bullied in school bathrooms that do not match their gender identity/expression.
On a practical level, NC's law will be most harmful for transgender youth, who have high suicide rates because they are routinely bullied in school bathrooms that do not match their gender identity/expression.
7
How do you explain the fact that blacks spent more that 400 years in slavery and more than 70 years under Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws yet nEVER have a high suicide rate? Blacks are still marginalized and even in modern times, their suicide rates are still low. Stop blaming society for the suicides of LGBT youth.
What baffle me beyond words is a very simple question about a social situation that has become very complicated. There have always been transgender folks. Where did they go to the bathroom before this legislative battle? Did it make any difference then and should it make any difference now? Do we have evidence of trans folks of the wrong gender 'lurking' in bathrooms spying on other folks already there?
9
Establishing sex/gender by anything other than anatomy means chaos. Is a gay man who identifies female actually gay? Should an anatomical male who identifies female compete only on girls' teams? Can there be such a thing as girls' and boys' sports teams. Do men and women even exist?
5
"Do men and women even exist?"
According to the Constitution they do.
And only males have full inclusion.
When the Equal Right's Amendment was NOT ratified, the statement became: "There are only males as fully-included citizens. Women may vote, but any other inclusion must come piece-meal, after a specific legal suit, or, not at all."
I can understand a female wanting the legal status of a male in this country.
I will never understand a male wanting the legal status of a female.
According to the Constitution they do.
And only males have full inclusion.
When the Equal Right's Amendment was NOT ratified, the statement became: "There are only males as fully-included citizens. Women may vote, but any other inclusion must come piece-meal, after a specific legal suit, or, not at all."
I can understand a female wanting the legal status of a male in this country.
I will never understand a male wanting the legal status of a female.
3
What rights do women not have? And before you point to the military, note that women do not have the responsibility of being required to register for the draft either.
Otherwise, it would seem women have pretty equal, perhaps more than equal, rights under the law. That they don't always exercise those rights (such as their disinclination to work longer hours in higher paying professions) is beside the point.
Otherwise, it would seem women have pretty equal, perhaps more than equal, rights under the law. That they don't always exercise those rights (such as their disinclination to work longer hours in higher paying professions) is beside the point.
Relax before your head explodes. It's going to be okay. Unless you don't get out in public, you've already used the potty with transgender people and probably even talked to them and never been the wiser. Just let people be themselves and solve problems when they actually arise rather than trying to pre-solve hypothetical problems.
1
This article shows that under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 LGBT rights are not guarenteed. That is it. Gender is not sex as the people who define gender as something other than what they are. Transgendered rights are therefore fake under all perspectives. They are not there along LGB rights. They just aren't there.
4
"Courts have often expanded the interpretation of laws in ways that the authors never imagined, to answer questions that earlier generations never thought to ask."
There, that should clear things up for you.
There, that should clear things up for you.
1
It seems to me that the U. S. government is arguing that recent court decisions against transgender rights are the Plessy v. Ferguson for the sexes. Hence we need a Brown v. Board of Education to undo this allegedly awful discrimination with regard to bathroom, locker room use and publicly supported sports teams, inter alia. Of course this guts the meaning of Title IX, in trying to achieve gender equity in sports. It guts the meaning of gender. I tend to think the Supreme Court, a few years down the road, will not break along conservative and liberal lines, as it does about 35% of the time. I think two of either Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and to-be-named will be voting with Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and Kennedy.
1
I find it ironic that the controversy centers around women's rooms - which have private, locked stalls - whereas no one seems to care about men's rooms, where people actually pee in front of others. I've honestly never seen a woman in a state of undress in a woman's room, so if someone's looking for a peep show they won't find lingering around the sinks. I personally don't care and think trans people should be able to do whatever they feel comfortable doing, but these are some of the logical arguments that tear down the points of the opposition. Of course, my observations are based on reason, so these protesters wouldn't listen to them.
23
The privacy issue gets stickier when you include locker rooms and showers, not that it should make a difference. Nudists are not concerned with issues of this sort and maybe we should get used to the idea of eliminating sex discrimination. When you start adding sexual preference to the mix instead of only hygiene...what facilities should a bisexual person use?
1
I have used locker rooms and it's not required to get naked in front of others. Also, I've never seen a women's locker room shower without a curtain (I know these are more popular in men's locker rooms). If you don't want others to see you you can always find a private place to change. That's been my experience both when I was in high school on the track team and as an adult in gyms.
1
How would Gov. Pat McCrory interpret the passage that "all men are created equal"?
The Founding Fathers probably really did mean "men only" - but was that because they really meant "and not women", or was it just that it never occurred to them, back then, to think of anyone other than a man (and a white man, at that) to have rights - like voting?
So when Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated that the protection was to be extended to "race, color, religion, sex or national origin", was it because they intentionally excluded "gender identity" - or was it simply because it never occurred to them?
The Founding Fathers probably really did mean "men only" - but was that because they really meant "and not women", or was it just that it never occurred to them, back then, to think of anyone other than a man (and a white man, at that) to have rights - like voting?
So when Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated that the protection was to be extended to "race, color, religion, sex or national origin", was it because they intentionally excluded "gender identity" - or was it simply because it never occurred to them?
7
what is the alternative to this? make everyone carry their birth certificates around and cross reference the sex listed with their outward appearance? have children prove their sex by exposing their genitals to the bathroom police?
this just goes to show how ridiculous social conservatives are in their thinking, that somehow they can make everyone conform to their understanding of what "normal" gender expression is, just as they thought they could make everyone conform to what their idea of "normal" sexuality is. the world is full of difference, and that is what makes it so rich. it never fails to amaze me how these social conservatives types want everything to be the same, to not be what our natural world expresses (vast difference and variation).
this just goes to show how ridiculous social conservatives are in their thinking, that somehow they can make everyone conform to their understanding of what "normal" gender expression is, just as they thought they could make everyone conform to what their idea of "normal" sexuality is. the world is full of difference, and that is what makes it so rich. it never fails to amaze me how these social conservatives types want everything to be the same, to not be what our natural world expresses (vast difference and variation).
17
It seems that the issue is not a birth certificate but a birth reality. The drift issue is self identification. We got a hint of it when the head of the Spokane NAACP identified herself as African-American, despite her "birth identity" is caucasian.Now we have someone self identified as female but a male. This condition used to be call "dressing in drag". Interestingly this is not a Jenner situation where sex was actually changed but where the person "self identifies".
Accordingly I would define the real legal issue not of sex discrimination but rather the right bel non to self identify,
Accordingly I would define the real legal issue not of sex discrimination but rather the right bel non to self identify,
obvious alternative: change the signs.
what you will find: women will choose the less-crowded men's rooms at intermission.
note the original nyt article also mentioned sb2 says NC cities can't set a minimum wage and more.
no wonder these clowns see even going to the bathroom as a power play.
what you will find: women will choose the less-crowded men's rooms at intermission.
note the original nyt article also mentioned sb2 says NC cities can't set a minimum wage and more.
no wonder these clowns see even going to the bathroom as a power play.
1
The plastic surgeon I saw after being bitten in the nose by a dog was the spitting image of Michelle Phillips. Not one in 10,000 would have met her and suspected that she was born male, was a fighter pilot and NASA astronaut on a standby medical team before finally finding the courage to transition. She is fully transitioned, including surgery. She is as female in her looks, manner, and personality as any woman I have met in my 68 years, and more so than many women who were born female. I can imagine the embarrassment, anger, outrage, or sexual arousal of men in an NC men's room if she were to walk in and take a stall - or sit in a urinal ;) - as NC law requires. She would not be safe.
She told me of a friend who had transitioned in her teens. She had been married twice to men and neither of them twigged for a second that she had started life as a male.
Sexual identity is not a function of physical "apparatus," but lies in the brain and is much more complex than either/or. Some children know in their first few years that their gender in their mind is different than in their body. Wise parents recognize this and allow the child to present him or herself as the gender their mind tells them they are, not their plumbing.
Sexual identity is a complex set of brain functions, and often brain construction, and we should recognize transitioning as corrective surgery. But, we live in a sexually twisted Puritanical society where fears of sexuality incite hatred and rage.
She told me of a friend who had transitioned in her teens. She had been married twice to men and neither of them twigged for a second that she had started life as a male.
Sexual identity is not a function of physical "apparatus," but lies in the brain and is much more complex than either/or. Some children know in their first few years that their gender in their mind is different than in their body. Wise parents recognize this and allow the child to present him or herself as the gender their mind tells them they are, not their plumbing.
Sexual identity is a complex set of brain functions, and often brain construction, and we should recognize transitioning as corrective surgery. But, we live in a sexually twisted Puritanical society where fears of sexuality incite hatred and rage.
5
Whether "sex," as used in the Civil Rights Act ("CRA"), includes "gender identity" is irrelevant here because society sanctions bathroom-use sex discrimination: if a "traditional" woman sought to use a men's restroom, was denied, and then sued for sex discrimination, she would lose. (I do not opine on the correctness of the Fourth Circuit's transgender bathroom opinion under Title IX.)
Because society permits bathroom-use discrimination, the real issue is how "men" and "women"---the discriminatory division society permits---are defined. Interwoven is whether it should be society or the individual to decide whether an individual falls within the accepted definition, or whether bathroom use is simply a matter of personal privacy and autonomy.
I strongly oppose HB2. Nevertheless, democracy and federalism are important principles in our republic. Although transgender discrimination is illegal under the CRA and violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause in most contexts, it might not in the bathroom context, since sex discrimination is sanctioned. I have yet to see legal arguments addressing the above questions demonstrating that HB2 conflicts with the CRA or violates the 14th Amendment.
Accordingly, North Carolinians and outsiders should continue pressuring the State to repeal HB2. The DOJ's lawsuit and withholding of federal funds are viable pressure points. Down the line, federal preemption is also an option.
-- Former U.S. Court of Appeals Law Clerk
Because society permits bathroom-use discrimination, the real issue is how "men" and "women"---the discriminatory division society permits---are defined. Interwoven is whether it should be society or the individual to decide whether an individual falls within the accepted definition, or whether bathroom use is simply a matter of personal privacy and autonomy.
I strongly oppose HB2. Nevertheless, democracy and federalism are important principles in our republic. Although transgender discrimination is illegal under the CRA and violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause in most contexts, it might not in the bathroom context, since sex discrimination is sanctioned. I have yet to see legal arguments addressing the above questions demonstrating that HB2 conflicts with the CRA or violates the 14th Amendment.
Accordingly, North Carolinians and outsiders should continue pressuring the State to repeal HB2. The DOJ's lawsuit and withholding of federal funds are viable pressure points. Down the line, federal preemption is also an option.
-- Former U.S. Court of Appeals Law Clerk
5
What is the compromise? Perhaps women should be asked to decide whether gender is to become a matter of feelings or genitalia. The unintended consequences of making the decision as gender a personal decision at any moment could be profound. For example flashers in female sanctuaries could mount the defense that their genitalia are gender neutral and there is no legal bases for restricting this behavior as long as they feel female.
4
The "bathroom" part of this bill is a solution in search of a problem. As others have noted here, the real issue is that this is a sweeping piece of discriminatory legislation including such things as wages.
I wish the media would either stop talking about this bill, or shift attention to its truly pernicious purpose. To paraphrase Bernie Sanders" "Who cares about the god-damn bathrooms!"
I wish the media would either stop talking about this bill, or shift attention to its truly pernicious purpose. To paraphrase Bernie Sanders" "Who cares about the god-damn bathrooms!"
33
Perhaps his wife or if has them, his daughters
There is a very substantial difference regarding transgender persons vs. gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and heterosexuals.
All but transgenders had no choice in both their sexual identity and their physical sexual equipment. Whereas many transgenders have chosen to alter their naturally occurred sexual equipment. I have no problem with them doing so. Everyone should have the right to make physical freaks of themselves if they choose.
I do not think laws regulating use of bathrooms are particularly important and would be happy if there were no such laws. However, all the North Carolina law did was require use of bathrooms according to one's naturally occurred sexual equipment. It does not discriminate against persons based upon their sexual identity. It discriminates only based upon one's naturally occurred sexual equipment. Opposition to that law is actually effort to substitute discrimination in bathroom use based upon sexual identity, to substitute sexual identity for naturally occurred sexual equipment as the criterion for bathroom use.
All but transgenders had no choice in both their sexual identity and their physical sexual equipment. Whereas many transgenders have chosen to alter their naturally occurred sexual equipment. I have no problem with them doing so. Everyone should have the right to make physical freaks of themselves if they choose.
I do not think laws regulating use of bathrooms are particularly important and would be happy if there were no such laws. However, all the North Carolina law did was require use of bathrooms according to one's naturally occurred sexual equipment. It does not discriminate against persons based upon their sexual identity. It discriminates only based upon one's naturally occurred sexual equipment. Opposition to that law is actually effort to substitute discrimination in bathroom use based upon sexual identity, to substitute sexual identity for naturally occurred sexual equipment as the criterion for bathroom use.
13
Errol is absolutely wrong in stating that all the NC law did was require a person to use the bathroom matching his or her naturally occurring biological sex.
In fact, the really pernicious element of this law occurs in Section 3.3: "The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation."
This law was passed specifically to overturn the city of Charlotte's newly passed ordinance outlawing discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered people. All the hoo-ha about men in women's bathrooms is just a diversion to cover the hatred directed by the Bible-thumpers in the legislature against their gay NC neighbors. Incidentally, so far as I am aware at least, there has never been a reported case of sexual assault in a public bathroom committed by a transgendered person against anyone, adult or child, of either sex.
In fact, the really pernicious element of this law occurs in Section 3.3: "The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation."
This law was passed specifically to overturn the city of Charlotte's newly passed ordinance outlawing discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered people. All the hoo-ha about men in women's bathrooms is just a diversion to cover the hatred directed by the Bible-thumpers in the legislature against their gay NC neighbors. Incidentally, so far as I am aware at least, there has never been a reported case of sexual assault in a public bathroom committed by a transgendered person against anyone, adult or child, of either sex.
3
Your assertion that transgender people have a choice in their identity that gay and lesbian people do not is flatly wrong. In fact, it is essentially the same. Transgender people no more "choose" their gender identity than they chose the genitals they were born with.
"Everyone should have the right to make physical freaks of themselves if they choose." You just had to "come out" didn't you. It can't be easy to present such a convoluted argument in writing. My hat's off to you.
1
It seems that abortion and same-sex marriage have lost their potency at the ballot box to drive "values" voters to the polls. So something "new" was needed.
14
Maybe now we'll start building toilet partitions to provide privacy instead of those silly metal partitions with a one-inch gap between the door and the jamb.
8
With all the challenges we face today, this is the issue we choose to deal with? We're done, my friends, the inmates have fully taken over the asylum.
11
We humans are sexual beings, and it is the brain's imprint at birth the one 'dictating' a given individual's sex. Not a choice really. And society must accommodate by being inclusive.
2
Republicans in North Carolina have started a fight over bathrooms to hide the true agenda: no local control over minimum wage, no access to state courts for many types of discrimination, and, above all, trying to get 1% more votes out of their base to keep control of governor's office. They hope that such appeals will work one last time.
14
I disagree with the characterization that "sex" was included "almost by accident." It was introduced as an amendment on the floor and voted on, where is the "accident"? An accident would be a staffer misinterpreting what they were supposed to write and including a wrong term that was then not noticed when people voted on it - this is the exact opposite of that!
8
Is HB2 even enforceable? I mean, I don't know how they would go about enforcing it and the very people who want to restrict government - arch conservatives - are advocating for expanding it, because it would take a lot of government workers to inspect each and every person using a bathroom in North Carolina. So, they just want it on the books so they can feel "comfortable" in their (theoretical) discrimination. Another great addition to the legacy of hateful laws on the books in the South. WTG, haters.
4
Apparently in North Carolina it is common practice among conservatives in both "men's" and women's rest rooms for the clientele to wave around their naked genitals in public while using the facilities. (Otherwise how would anyone know). Perhaps, instead of this new law they could solve their problem by practicing and encouraging more modesty in public rest-rooms.
5
The government passed laws requiring separate bathrooms, and insisted that they be labelled "Mens" and "Womens". (And before that, "Colored" and "White".) Then they changed their minds and insisted that anyone who enforced these usage rules - that the government mandated - was a terrible person.
Why can't the government just leave people to do what makes sense to them?
Why can't the government just leave people to do what makes sense to them?
9
When a baby is born the doctor announces the sex and that characteristic is entered on the birth certificate. So there is no sex discrimination. It is not what one "believes" or imagines themselves to be, it is what one is.
23
If only the world was so simple. In fact, the doctor's judgement is sometimes quite wrong even as a mater of biology. What the doctor is seeing in that moment is what the morphism of the genitalia, not internal organs, the biochemistry, or the neural architecture. When the morphology "looks wrong" they frequently "correct" it surgically to conform to societal preferences.
The doctor's pronouncement is simply a prediction based on probability. The question we have before us as society is about those minority of cases where your putative delivery doctor's call is falsified be the subsequent events we call "a life." Specifically, do we make those individuals whose lived existence is at odds with the delivery room's overly-confident prediction live lives of ostracization, humiliation, and pain because we don't want to admit we got it wrong back when?
The doctor's pronouncement is simply a prediction based on probability. The question we have before us as society is about those minority of cases where your putative delivery doctor's call is falsified be the subsequent events we call "a life." Specifically, do we make those individuals whose lived existence is at odds with the delivery room's overly-confident prediction live lives of ostracization, humiliation, and pain because we don't want to admit we got it wrong back when?
According to your own description, "It is not what one 'believes' or imagines themselves to be," it is what the doctor present at birth believed them to be.
Everyone wants to sweep the situation of intersex babies under the rug, but those cases say a lot about the fantasy world we live in. Physical sex characteristics aren't actually binary as we like to believe. In intersex cases doctors historically have made a choice and frequently left people with 'hardware' that doesn't match their 'software'. Why is it so impossible for people to accept that occasionally nature also mismatches the software?
Everyone wants to sweep the situation of intersex babies under the rug, but those cases say a lot about the fantasy world we live in. Physical sex characteristics aren't actually binary as we like to believe. In intersex cases doctors historically have made a choice and frequently left people with 'hardware' that doesn't match their 'software'. Why is it so impossible for people to accept that occasionally nature also mismatches the software?
1
Intersex individuals are rare. Most women (adult human females) do not "identify" as women. We are treated as such by society. Being female is not a feeling, it is a lived reality.
2
Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s assertion that the difference between biological sex and gender identity is a “distinction without a difference” will revolutionized the teaching of animal husbandry in our agricultural schools.
21
It seems liberals love to point toward conservative's opposition to science only to deny natural science themselves. Two peas in a pod.
3
So disappointed by my fellow black women in the cover photo; do they not realize they are reenforcing the same bigotry that, decades ago, counted them as only 3/5ths of a person and even now pays them like 7/10ths of one? Race, sex, and gender are no less arbitrary than height and hair color. Can't wait until NC passes a law that tall people have to use a different bathroom because they might look over into the next stall.
20
Can I choose to identify as a black person and thereby gain access to racial preferences in hiring and university admissions? Why not?
6
This is an outright attack on the rights of women and children! The lefts argument is that Transgenders feel more comfortable going to the restroom of their choice, well what about the comfort of women and children? Many woman and children will now feel very uncomfortable and even terrified to use a public restroom, knowing that any man can just walk in without drawing any attention. It is time for good people everywhere to wake up and take a stand! Our society is crumbling before our very eyes and everyone is asleep. We must fight back! Call your senators, contact your representatives and tell them that We support North Carolina!
17
"Many woman and children will now feel very uncomfortable and even terrified to use a public restroom, knowing that any man can just walk in without drawing any attention."
First, a male-to-female trans person is not a man. She is a woman.
Secondly, you're right. You and your children have already been sharing restrooms for years with trans people who have "walked in without drawing any attention."
Finally, I can assure you that when a female-to-male trans person enters a women's rest room as required by HB2, it is guaranteed to draw lots of attention.
First, a male-to-female trans person is not a man. She is a woman.
Secondly, you're right. You and your children have already been sharing restrooms for years with trans people who have "walked in without drawing any attention."
Finally, I can assure you that when a female-to-male trans person enters a women's rest room as required by HB2, it is guaranteed to draw lots of attention.
2
As the member of a family of 8, I grew up using a unisex bathroom. I would not feel bothered by a man trying on clothes in the stall next to me at the Gap or Old Navy or Taget. In fact the possiblity that ANYONE could possibly walk in on a vulnerable person should be empowering. Where have some of the worst sexual abuse cases arisen from? SINGLE SEX LOCKER ROOMS. And they have been perpetuated by the most trusted of individuals. As Dan Savage told Ann Coulter, google sexual predators and public bathrooms and you will NOT find transexual assaults.
2
the fact that you are uncomfortable with transgendered people isn't an excuse for discrimination. it actually means that you ought to meet some transgendered people and become more comfortable with them, and get over your bigotry.
2
This is to address the bathroom-use issue from a different perspective. As a female [from birth], I occasionally make use of a mens' room in urgent circumstances when no womens' room is available. This year, I had an eye-opening experience at a cultural event here in MD. I found myself in need of use of the mens' room at the venue, so I approached the open mens' room door & shyly & sweetly asked the men using the facilities if they minded if I made use of one of the unoccupied stalls. About a third of the men ignored me. Another third responded with welcome. The last third spoke out vehemently against the idea. I went in anyway. As I sat and peed, one man shouted through the door at me that it was the mens' room & I shouldn't be in there at all! I have spent considerable time mulling the event and decided that everyone has something that makes them violently uncomfortable. Sharing a bathroom with an person who doesn't have the same genitalia is a trigger for many people, women & men. The point is that most people have been socialized through generations of instilled comfort vs fear. It's going to take some time for fearful people to overcome what triggers their fears.
25
The solutions to your problem are more adequate bathroom facilities for women and more unisex bathrooms. Men don't object to sharing toilets, changing rooms and showers with women because they hate or fear women. Some women do fear men, but their primary objection to sharing toilets, changing rooms and showers is sexual modesty, not fear and loathing.
1
Wonder what they do at home.
Don't know what other families do, but we just close the bathroom/bedroom door. I don't frequent men's rooms, but I presume there are private stalls in addition to the urinals. This NC law is indeed a solution for a non-existent problem.
The reporters of this piece are quite right to indicate that North Carolina is still unresolved about being required to end a tradition allowing race to determine separate bathrooms. They are uncomfortable with moving toward changes where a society's unifying force is not grounded in discrimination. They feel that their 'body politic' is being coopted and raped by the 'other.' They reject the idea that the price of belonging to "A More Perfect Union" is that they must play by the same rules as everybody else. They want the rest of us taxpayers in the land to continue to pay them and fund their society, but they are unwilling to comply with the rules. More like mules, digging their heels in the mud, yet, North Carolina, like most children will be potty-trained or they may not be entitled to the same rights, privileges, and respect that is afforded to other members of society who know that a bathroom is not a punishment room. It's a restroom. An anyone who uses one knows what freedom feels like, on a very basic and biological level. Shun North Carolina, they shame us!
2
Has a crime show on TV -- Special Victims Unit, say, or Criminal Minds -- ever had an episode about a sexual predator who looks, dresses, and acts like a woman but with intent to rape in the women's rest room? Not to my knowledge. I wouldn't say SVU or Criminal Intent represent the last word on perversion of that sort, they specialize in perversity. It seems the writers or producers would have picked up on such a bizarre thing and done an episode about it be now.
"This is the history that Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina turned to when he sued the Justice Department on Monday, arguing that sex means biological sex, and nothing more."
Biological sex, invoking a long scientifically discarded, of a binary? About as useful as invoking the term "race."
The officials of Catawaba College, where Gov. McCrory earned degrees in education and political science, should start degree withdrawal proceedings, or at least start recall proceedings to fix the displayed ignorance.
Biological sex, invoking a long scientifically discarded, of a binary? About as useful as invoking the term "race."
The officials of Catawaba College, where Gov. McCrory earned degrees in education and political science, should start degree withdrawal proceedings, or at least start recall proceedings to fix the displayed ignorance.
All of this- the bill, the reporting on it, the outrage over it, everything around it- is one of a number of strategically placed distractions to move attention away from major situations our present "leaders" will not or can not deal with. Those situations include:
The economy of the world is beyond any traditional local politics and people's ability to understand.
The fact that manufacturing is not going to return in a way that will rebuild the middle class, anywhere.
The days of making insane fortunes moving money around invisibly are swiftly coming to an end.
Best thing to do? Keep hoi poloi concerned about children in bathrooms.
It's going to get weird when people's own bodyguards turn on them, is all I can say.
The economy of the world is beyond any traditional local politics and people's ability to understand.
The fact that manufacturing is not going to return in a way that will rebuild the middle class, anywhere.
The days of making insane fortunes moving money around invisibly are swiftly coming to an end.
Best thing to do? Keep hoi poloi concerned about children in bathrooms.
It's going to get weird when people's own bodyguards turn on them, is all I can say.
1
The recent 4th Circuit ruling did not settle the issue as to whether the school had to allow a female student to use the boys bathroom. The 4th Circuit sent the case back down to VA for reconsideration, saying the VA judge had used an incorrect legal standard and instructing him to reconsider the student's Title IX claim. The case is ongoing.
Gender has always been involved in Title IX and VII. It is a violation of the rights of women and men, girls and boys, to discriminate against them for reasons of gender norms and expectations. Thus it is illegal to deny a boy the right to take Home Ec because "boys don't sew". But this is "sex discrimination," not "gender identity discrimination." The courts and Congress acknowledge that there are no gendered behavioral norms "appropriate" to one or the other sex, even though the law recognizes two sexes.
Bullying someone because they don't conform to traditional gender norms is *sex* discrimination, and trans people are protected against this under existing law. But the transgender rights movement gets things bass-ackwards. A male trans person says - hey, I conform to stereotypical gendered expectations of women, because I wear high heels, skirts, makeup, and speak in a high girlish voice. Therefore I am a woman, therefore I am being discriminated against for not being allowed to use the girls' locker room showers.
Gender has always been involved in Title IX and VII. It is a violation of the rights of women and men, girls and boys, to discriminate against them for reasons of gender norms and expectations. Thus it is illegal to deny a boy the right to take Home Ec because "boys don't sew". But this is "sex discrimination," not "gender identity discrimination." The courts and Congress acknowledge that there are no gendered behavioral norms "appropriate" to one or the other sex, even though the law recognizes two sexes.
Bullying someone because they don't conform to traditional gender norms is *sex* discrimination, and trans people are protected against this under existing law. But the transgender rights movement gets things bass-ackwards. A male trans person says - hey, I conform to stereotypical gendered expectations of women, because I wear high heels, skirts, makeup, and speak in a high girlish voice. Therefore I am a woman, therefore I am being discriminated against for not being allowed to use the girls' locker room showers.
6
Here are three absurdities in how civil rights law is being interpreted:
1. If "male" and "female" refer to gender identity rather than only to biological sex, that would effectively mean that women's sports teams must be open to men who profess to be women. Schools would effectively have to open all sports teams to all individuals regardless of sex/gender-identity, which would mean an end to the participation (let alone the EQUAL participation) of women in college athletics, thereby rendering Title IX a dead letter.
2. If restroom access is granted on the basis of gender identity rather than biological sex, that means that NOT allowing a biological male who identifies as a man (a "cisgender") access to the women's room is literally discrimination on the basis of gender identity. So here too, like in sports, there would be no longer any legal justification to have separate restrooms for the sexes.
3. If the law recognizes gender identity as a prohibited category of discrimination, why not other types of identity that conflict with biological fact? For instance, what is to stop whites from declaring on college applications that they identify as black in order to increase their chances of getting into a good college or a minority scholarship? Rachel Dolezal "identified" as black as was crucified by the media, and rightly so. But notice: race, as opposed to sex, IS a social construct. So how can we bar gender identity discrimination but not racial identity discrimination?
1. If "male" and "female" refer to gender identity rather than only to biological sex, that would effectively mean that women's sports teams must be open to men who profess to be women. Schools would effectively have to open all sports teams to all individuals regardless of sex/gender-identity, which would mean an end to the participation (let alone the EQUAL participation) of women in college athletics, thereby rendering Title IX a dead letter.
2. If restroom access is granted on the basis of gender identity rather than biological sex, that means that NOT allowing a biological male who identifies as a man (a "cisgender") access to the women's room is literally discrimination on the basis of gender identity. So here too, like in sports, there would be no longer any legal justification to have separate restrooms for the sexes.
3. If the law recognizes gender identity as a prohibited category of discrimination, why not other types of identity that conflict with biological fact? For instance, what is to stop whites from declaring on college applications that they identify as black in order to increase their chances of getting into a good college or a minority scholarship? Rachel Dolezal "identified" as black as was crucified by the media, and rightly so. But notice: race, as opposed to sex, IS a social construct. So how can we bar gender identity discrimination but not racial identity discrimination?
10
New York Times readers: Do not dismiss this comment as hyperbole. If the Justice Department prevails, biological sex will effectively no longer exist before the law.
Separate restrooms in this country have long perpetuated discrimination and created barriers to opportunities. Ever stand on one of those long lines outside the women's room and end up late to the start of the business meeting? It's a problem. Let's end separate facilities once and for all, especially, for all.
1
Let's not. My right to privacy and dignity is more important than agreeing to pretend that a woman is a man or a man is a woman.
6
"Separate restrooms in this country have long ... created barriers to opportunities."
You just moved needle of the electoral compass even farther to the right...
You just moved needle of the electoral compass even farther to the right...
This is just the latest example of how a "right" -- the right not to be discriminated against due to gender identity -- will end up having to be justified or rejected by the SCOTUS. The strategy of both sides in this controversy is to push the dispute through the lower courts and seek a definitive position on gender identity as a category of personage protected by the Constitution, or not. It was the legal path used successfully by blacks and gays (but only tenuously for women), and the battle lines are now drawn.
Which is why, depending upon your point of view, the stakes are so high in the impasse over a replacement Justice for Scalia. If the Court remains split, a lower Appeals Court ruling for or against gender identity rights could decide the matter for years to come.
Which is why, depending upon your point of view, the stakes are so high in the impasse over a replacement Justice for Scalia. If the Court remains split, a lower Appeals Court ruling for or against gender identity rights could decide the matter for years to come.
4
"This is just the latest example of how a "right" -- the right not to be discriminated against due to gender identity -- will end up having to be justified or rejected by the SCOTUS."
This right -- which some claim to be "new" -- already exists. It is in the 14th Amendment, and is called the "equal protection of the laws." No government can take it away without a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.
Unlike our mother country, where parliamentary supremacy prohibits judicial review, we (who rebelled because of an oppressive parliament's laws) have to go to court when the government gets out of hand.
This right -- which some claim to be "new" -- already exists. It is in the 14th Amendment, and is called the "equal protection of the laws." No government can take it away without a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.
Unlike our mother country, where parliamentary supremacy prohibits judicial review, we (who rebelled because of an oppressive parliament's laws) have to go to court when the government gets out of hand.
The point is that as societies change, the way older laws are interpreted changes also. Were this not to happen, society would stagnate and it would be very difficult to build a more equitable and inclusive society.
2
The 1964 Act's inclusion of both race and sex -- even with the latter's having been expanded by subsequent court cases -- pretty much prohibits denial of a public accommodation to someone on the suspicion that their chromosomes are wrong.
For centuries, society has politely accepted any individual's appearance as the standard by which access to public accommodations is granted. A reversal of that standard -- to require genetic conformity to one's appearance -- not only violates the 1964 Act, it would require an amendment to the US Constitution, if not repeal of the 14th Amendment.
For centuries, society has politely accepted any individual's appearance as the standard by which access to public accommodations is granted. A reversal of that standard -- to require genetic conformity to one's appearance -- not only violates the 1964 Act, it would require an amendment to the US Constitution, if not repeal of the 14th Amendment.
2
Only a tiny percent of percent of transgender women can pass as women and only a tiny percent of transgender men can pass as men. So, if appearance is to be the determining factor, very few transgender women would be allowed in the women's room and very few transgender men would be allowed in the men's room. Virtually none would be permitted in changing rooms and showers. Caitlyn Jenner, for example, looks like a male decathlon champ.
1
Maybe its an IQ thing? In my early 20's, my close circle of (male and female) friends included a woman who was transgendered. None of us knew it it until she suddenly died (from complications from sex change surgery).
Each of us had our own friends from outside the group, and her circle included some of the sexiest women I've ever seen. I never saw any of them again after my friend's death, and I concluded that they, too, were trans, and it was not safe for them to venture into the spotlight created by my friend's death.
Or maybe I was just dumb!
Each of us had our own friends from outside the group, and her circle included some of the sexiest women I've ever seen. I never saw any of them again after my friend's death, and I concluded that they, too, were trans, and it was not safe for them to venture into the spotlight created by my friend's death.
Or maybe I was just dumb!
Only a tiny percent of transgender people have sex-change operation, Only a tiny percent of those whose do can pass as women, including those who have work done on their vocal cords and Adam's apple..
This “Transgender fight” is one of the final battles in the conservative “war on others” that has been going on for more than half a century. First the conservatives lost the racial battles when the Civil rights Act was passed, then they lost the anti-contraception and anti-abortion battles (yes, Roe v, Wade is still standing), then last year they lost the same sex marriage battle – less because of the Supreme Court decision than the fact that a majority of Americans have accepted the concept. The conservatives are always on the wrong side of history – seeking to legitimize discrimination and a theocratic view of personal behavior that a majority of Americans reject – and so it will come to pass with the “Transgender fight,” a non issue in the minds of most people.
2
Now that same-sex marriage is legal, the Justice Department want to make same-sex bathrooms illegal.
The legal battle over which bathrooms transgender people can use does not hinge on whether the Civil Rights Act applies to transgender people as the authors assert. The law clearly applies only to discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” In its lawsuit, the Justice Department does not contend that the Civil Rights Act covers transgender people. Instead, the department contends that gender identify changes men into women and women into men. At paragraph 34 of the complaint, the department states that “A transgender man’s sex is male and a transgender woman’s sex is female.” The legal battle hinges over whether gender identity or hormones, external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, and chromosomes determine sex.
6
Many laws promulgated in the past have been re-interpreted to meet the evolving cultural changes in our society. Whatever the framers originally meant when they included "sex" in the law was intended to expand civil rights and eliminate discriminatory practices prevalent in this country during this period .
Attorney General Lynch's reliance on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to challenge the North Carolina law is the correct interpretation of the Act and is consistent with the intention of its promulgators.
Attorney General Lynch's reliance on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to challenge the North Carolina law is the correct interpretation of the Act and is consistent with the intention of its promulgators.
The question is who gets to reinterpret the law... If the law needs to be changed, then it should be debated and the legislature should change it and it be signed into law with the concurrence of the President. It is not up to an appointed lawyer or judge in Washington to unilaterally change the clear language of the law.
1
A persons biology should define the room the use, simple.
If a person has had a sex change and therefor their biology has changed they use the restroom of their biology.
My view in not based on hatred or bigotry, it's based on decency and respect for women and men who will be uncomfortable with the chance that a bad person takes advantage of the situation.
We are being told that we must accept the needs and wants of the transgender community at the same time the trans community refuses to accept the needs of others.
It seems that no one wishes to find a middle ground...
I for one will not take the chance that my little girl could end up in a public bathroom with someone who takes advantage of the situation.
Jesus teaches and expects me to love everyone, but he didn't order me to toss common sense out the window.
If a trans person can pass as a male or female and they choose to use the bathroom of their dress so be it, no one needs to know.
Schools should provide a unisex changing / restroom sot those who are uncomfortable with public rooms.
Most importantly we need to stop calling each other names and hateful things and search for a common place as each sides views, needs and concerns are valued.
If a person has had a sex change and therefor their biology has changed they use the restroom of their biology.
My view in not based on hatred or bigotry, it's based on decency and respect for women and men who will be uncomfortable with the chance that a bad person takes advantage of the situation.
We are being told that we must accept the needs and wants of the transgender community at the same time the trans community refuses to accept the needs of others.
It seems that no one wishes to find a middle ground...
I for one will not take the chance that my little girl could end up in a public bathroom with someone who takes advantage of the situation.
Jesus teaches and expects me to love everyone, but he didn't order me to toss common sense out the window.
If a trans person can pass as a male or female and they choose to use the bathroom of their dress so be it, no one needs to know.
Schools should provide a unisex changing / restroom sot those who are uncomfortable with public rooms.
Most importantly we need to stop calling each other names and hateful things and search for a common place as each sides views, needs and concerns are valued.
9
Not even doctors who perform “sex-reassignment surgery” claim it changes a person sex. The procedure is thought to have some therapeutic value in extreme gender dysphoria case because lessens the incongruity between a gender dysphoria patient’s perception of his or her sexuality and physical reality. John Hopkins Hospital pioneered sex-reassignment surgery but no longer performs the procedure because most patients remain emotionally distressed after the surgery. The hospital concluded that the small benefit provided did not justify the removal of healthy organs. Only a tiny percent of transgender patients undergo the operation. Many transgender women don’t want the operation because they are sexually attracted to women, not men. Transgender people can be heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian. However, recent research conducted at the University of Minnesota ““suggests that the breakdown of sexualities among transsexual women—men who think of themselves as female--is 38% bisexual, 35% attracted to women, and 27% attracted to men.” This means that 73 percent of transgender women are sexually attracted to women and 35 percent are exclusively attracted exclusively to women. So, a penis comes in handy. Besides, a transgender women who undergoes the operation cannot sire children.
2
OK Chris, but please stop using the "my little girl" safety argument like little girls are suddenly, and only now, at risk.
1
The main basis for sex-segregate bathrooms is sexual modesty, not fear of sexual assault. However, transgender woman pose about the same threat to women as non-transgender men. Violent crime rates are much higher among transgender women than among non-transgender women. Transgender people are as likely as non-transgender people to be pedophiles and rapists.
The NC General Assembly/Republican party does not care about safety in women's bathrooms and showers. This is about the election, pure and simple. That portion of HB2 is there to rile up the base for November. I don't think they care that this provision will be overturned, they just want to perpetuate the fight though November to drive turnout. They did the same thing with Amendment 1 (anti gay marriage) in 2012.
To NC Republicans, the more important provisions are preventing: 1) local governments from writing non-discrimination and higher minimum wage ordinances; 2) discrimination lawsuits in state courts.
That these provisions go directly against the conservative principle of local government having priority demonstrates that they aren't conservatives, just power-hungry.
To NC Republicans, the more important provisions are preventing: 1) local governments from writing non-discrimination and higher minimum wage ordinances; 2) discrimination lawsuits in state courts.
That these provisions go directly against the conservative principle of local government having priority demonstrates that they aren't conservatives, just power-hungry.
6
I think of the times I wandered into the Ladies room by mistake.
I think of the women at concerts and stadiums who bravely (and wisely) forgo the long line to the Womens room and enter the Mens.
I think of the unisex facilities provided at traveling Cirque du Soleil shows.
I think of how stupid all of this must look to Europeans.
I think we’ll all survive allowing anybody to use whatever bathroom they want.
I kind of think that’s been happening to some extent all along.
I think of the women at concerts and stadiums who bravely (and wisely) forgo the long line to the Womens room and enter the Mens.
I think of the unisex facilities provided at traveling Cirque du Soleil shows.
I think of how stupid all of this must look to Europeans.
I think we’ll all survive allowing anybody to use whatever bathroom they want.
I kind of think that’s been happening to some extent all along.
10
Where was it in Europe, Sweden? Where all the bathrooms were unisex, just like on airplanes and trains>
It is silly to suggest that the word "sex" connotes something other than traditional male/female designations. It is equally silly to suggest that a person born male is now female because of the way they "feel" within their own bodies.
In nature, a man is born with both an x and Y chromosome whereas a female is born with two X chromosomes. No amount of surgery, hormone therapy or cross-dressing will ever change that.
The science in this issue is settled.
In nature, a man is born with both an x and Y chromosome whereas a female is born with two X chromosomes. No amount of surgery, hormone therapy or cross-dressing will ever change that.
The science in this issue is settled.
17
Ed needs to take a good biology course. Not all people are born with either XX or XY chromosomes. And what about the innumerable ways, not understood, of how hundreds of genes interact with each other and the environment to produce outward behavior? Low information comments are the worst.
3
So psychology is not a science? As you say, "settled."
"... the Justice Department said the word also covers gender identity, not just anatomy..."
This could have fantastic unintended consequences. The easiest one is a male high school student applying to a college as a female because he " identifies as a girl", which of courses cannot be proved or disproved. What if he applies to a major at this college that is trying to increase it the percentage of woman in that class? It's a back door into a program.
If a person can identify as a different sex, why not identify as a different race? As a teenager, I listen to a lot of rap music and I wore clothes associated with black youth at the time. I could have easily identified as an African-American. I could apply to college as an African American in that case, no?
Maybe African American males could identify as white females and then they could avoid being shot by police!
This could have fantastic unintended consequences. The easiest one is a male high school student applying to a college as a female because he " identifies as a girl", which of courses cannot be proved or disproved. What if he applies to a major at this college that is trying to increase it the percentage of woman in that class? It's a back door into a program.
If a person can identify as a different sex, why not identify as a different race? As a teenager, I listen to a lot of rap music and I wore clothes associated with black youth at the time. I could have easily identified as an African-American. I could apply to college as an African American in that case, no?
Maybe African American males could identify as white females and then they could avoid being shot by police!
12
Actually. most US Colleges already allow transpeople to apply as themselves. In fact, even single-sex institution admit transpeople. It hasn't been a problem.
maybe this is a signal that all of these distinctions that keep us separate and boxed in are irrelevant. maybe we don't need "men," "women," "black," "white," "straight," "gay" anymore. these categories will always fail us, and they are arbitrary.
Michael, this is a tempest in a teacup; let it go.
1
In almost all the news reports I see or read on this issue it mainly consists of men insisting on protecting us little women from a big bad man dressed as a woman using our bathrooms. I don't care who uses a public bathroom with me as long as they don't urinate on the seat or floor and flush the toilet. That goes for both men and women. Do away wih the wall urinals and have private stalls. When there have been long lines at a women's bathroom, I have used the nearly empty men's room. It's not a big deal. As for showers and locker rooms, I think this is much more a deal for men that women. We generally don't walk around without towels and are respectful of the more modest among us if we do. Grow up. Using a toilet is as basic a human function as eating and we don't have any problem eating next to a member of the opposite sex.
18
What gives you the right to decide that violating men's privacy is not a big deal?
If you don't care about privacy and decorum then wonderful for you. But many other people, both men and women, feel differently. There is a wee bit of difference between eating and relieving oneself. I bet if you think about it you might realize what it is.
If you don't care about privacy and decorum then wonderful for you. But many other people, both men and women, feel differently. There is a wee bit of difference between eating and relieving oneself. I bet if you think about it you might realize what it is.
2
Check out the accompanying photo. The HB2 proponent appear to be mostly women.
Do you really wear a towel in the shower?
Urinals take up less space and save millions of dollars because they are less costly to install and create fewer plumbing problems because they don't handle solid waste. They are the reason the line outside the men's room is shorter than lines outside the women's room.
Do you really wear a towel in the shower?
Urinals take up less space and save millions of dollars because they are less costly to install and create fewer plumbing problems because they don't handle solid waste. They are the reason the line outside the men's room is shorter than lines outside the women's room.
Some in this forum view gender as simply a distinction between penis and vagina. Many transgender individuals will explain gender in a neural sense. It seems to me, as we learn more about gender, how it is expressed is far more complicated than simple anatomy. Science helps us with these issues. In interpreting law and setting policy, perhaps we should allow science to guide us rather than fear.
10
My argument against the bill all along is not about bathrooms. The bathroom debate is pure diversion from the real problem of the bill and those who use the bathroom debate as their argument for and against are missing the point and apparently never read the text of the legislation. HB2 will be struck down for the same reason as Romer vs Evans 1996, but not because of bathrooms. The actual text of the bill specifically fails to include transgender as a protected class that include race and gender and effectively legalizes discrimination in housing, education and many other parts of ordinary daily life against transgender individuals.
4
If we can successfully argue that the framers of the Constitution meant to allow any and everyone access to owning weapons for personal use that could kill dozens in seconds, , then I think we can argue that Congress intended to protect gender in the phrase "sex." Ain't Originalism great?
4
If the courts find that transgenders are included in the Civil Rights Act, then the plain language of laws essentially mean nothing.
And such an expansive reading of statutes would create chaos and divisiveness -- and likely go against the will of the American people.
For if the people wanted to share intimate spaces with those born a different sex, they would surely elect senators and representatives to enact such legislation.
And not leave this up to a politicized Justice Department led by a woman with clear and deep grievances against the United States.
And such an expansive reading of statutes would create chaos and divisiveness -- and likely go against the will of the American people.
For if the people wanted to share intimate spaces with those born a different sex, they would surely elect senators and representatives to enact such legislation.
And not leave this up to a politicized Justice Department led by a woman with clear and deep grievances against the United States.
9
In AMerican jurisprudence, "the plain language of laws" is only one factor considered and not determinative. In a case like this, it isn't very helpful because the word "sex" has many meanings and nuances depending on context and usage.
As for the Attorney General of the United States, I wonder what it is about her and her stirling history as a public prosecutor that leads you to conclude she has "clear grievances" against the country she has devoted her life to. Can you be specific about the grievance and the evidence of same. Your interpretation just downs;t seem to me to jibe with the facts.
As for the Attorney General of the United States, I wonder what it is about her and her stirling history as a public prosecutor that leads you to conclude she has "clear grievances" against the country she has devoted her life to. Can you be specific about the grievance and the evidence of same. Your interpretation just downs;t seem to me to jibe with the facts.
I have to wonder what the NC Legislature is attempting to divert attention from - yes, this is a diversion of attention. The issue, as it were, is actually a non-issue and when these happen I have found that somebody is doing something else behind the cover of the media storm. This is nothing new and the good people of NC are going to wake up one day with something that they never expected that got past the media while they were focused on a non-issue.
I hope that some reporter is ignoring the brouhaha and watching what is happening while everyone else is looking at HB2.
I hope that some reporter is ignoring the brouhaha and watching what is happening while everyone else is looking at HB2.
3
Stop comparing black rights to someone born a male wanting to use the female restroom, because that is not the same. Black people was born that way, no male believing he was born female is female. These people have lost all sense of reality.
22
Many, including Christian leaders, claim we had gone too far when we outlawed slavery - clearly permitted in the Old and New Testaments. Many, including Christian leaders, claimed that interracial marriages were an abomination and legislated against it (the final "miscegenation" law wasn't struck down until 1967). Even Richard Nixon, expressing his opposition to abortion on the Nixon tapes, said that he could see a justification if the fetus was that of a "mixed-race" couple. Many though we had gone too far when women were allowed to own property, inherit, and, finally, to vote.
Society over the past 10,000 years has only advanced because most of us are not locked into the status quo (or, worst, some distant past), and are, again and again, willing to "go too far."
Society over the past 10,000 years has only advanced because most of us are not locked into the status quo (or, worst, some distant past), and are, again and again, willing to "go too far."
1
There is a perfect and absolutely clear difference between a man and a woman in anatomy. Less clear, actually completely oblivious to an observer, is what resides in an individual's mind. While allowing for a transgender to choose a restroom based on that individual's inclination does not present a danger - an overblown issue - extending that right into a locker room is another matter. Now, acknowledging the certain physical difference of male and female permits legally defining separate rooms for both. What does this discrimination allow except for privacy and safety?
It's an overreach to extend full civil rights to transgenders when to do so flies in the face of common sense and the rights of 99.9% of the population as already implemented. The Court has often split issues and it will be called to do so again to reach an acceptable and fair ruling.
It's an overreach to extend full civil rights to transgenders when to do so flies in the face of common sense and the rights of 99.9% of the population as already implemented. The Court has often split issues and it will be called to do so again to reach an acceptable and fair ruling.
10
This is all too much. I think there are rights of privacy that should be respected for those of us who are not transgender. I am also very concerned for children and adolescents when they are at school or other sports locker rooms.
6
The reality is that LGBT young people already face discrimination due to their orientations. Perhaps this wasn't such a problem in the past, but it is prevalent now. Most of those objecting have never met a transgender person and have some bizarre and paranoid idea about who they are. This is exactly the kind of demonization that happened in the past about black men and gay men. They were perceived as shadowy enormous villains who threatened the virtue of white women, girls and children. Turning "the other" into a bogeyman is easy. Once people realized that they in fact did know gay people and had relatives and friends who were gay, the issue of gay marriage was no longer a hard line for them. I wish this would be the last frontier for bigots but with the religion freedom laws trying to force discrimination into law again, I doubt it.
Young people have more challenges today than people can imagine. It is sad that this kind of prejudice (usually accompanied by bullying and hate crimes) will hit such vulnerable individuals.
Young people have more challenges today than people can imagine. It is sad that this kind of prejudice (usually accompanied by bullying and hate crimes) will hit such vulnerable individuals.
5
if there is a group that republicans care less about than LGBT, it is children.
they may claim otherwise, but reality exposes their lies.
they may claim otherwise, but reality exposes their lies.
2
As someone who is genuinely confused by the intensity of this discussion, I think that it is disturbing if a person who either has genitalia or the appearance of one sex chooses to use public facilities such as bathrooms, showers or school locker rooms of the other sex. Like many others, I also find the idea that sex is a choice that can change back and forth is disturbing - to be clear I am fine with the idea of 'one-way' and permanent sexual reassignment, I am only disturbed by the implications of people flipping back and forth without the legal and surgical choices that make it permanent.
12
If the premise of an argument is used as validation in support of either side or point of view of an argument, then the merits of that point of view stand false and hold no salt.
The ACLU attorney statement below does just this; attempts to use the premise of the argument in an attempt to validate the opposing point of view Governor of NC and the law passed in NC .....
“The criticism on the right is often that there is no grounding in the text of the law, but in this case, I would argue there is,” said Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and HIV Project. The North Carolina dispute is about who is really a man or a woman, he said, so “there’s no question it’s about sex.”
The ACLU attorney statement below does just this; attempts to use the premise of the argument in an attempt to validate the opposing point of view Governor of NC and the law passed in NC .....
“The criticism on the right is often that there is no grounding in the text of the law, but in this case, I would argue there is,” said Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and HIV Project. The North Carolina dispute is about who is really a man or a woman, he said, so “there’s no question it’s about sex.”
1
This topic is pretty much an example that we've run the gamut on social issues in this country. Can we move on to huge topics like getting an industrial sector back, and rebuilding the middle class? This is the Red Herring of Red Herring issues on the political landscape. If the correct figure is really .3% of the population then you have to ask, How far down will those obsessed with social issues split hairs to make headlines?
16
once the christian extremists have run out of legal targets for their hatred, they will turn on each other for their doctrinal differences
i am looking forward to that.
i am looking forward to that.
1
I have two problems with the "right" to "pick your own bathroom".
First that "right" flies in the face of the rule of law and says an individual can unilaterally decide whatever they want and as long as they label it a "human right" they are free of criticism because whatever they choose to do becomes a sacred cow and any criticism becomes "discrimination". Nobody regardless of their gender gets everything they want all the time---that's the way life works. This is the worst kind of whining and self serving rationalization and "I'm a victim" mentality I've ever heard.
Just more "me, me, me" permissiveness and excess where anything goes as long as it feels good and "I want it". Extreme secular humanism and political correctness run amok. We seem obsessed with individual rights and forget that society has rights too. There always has to be a balance.
And second why do I and society even care if transgender people can choose their own bathroom? What's the big deal? What actual harm do transgender individuals suffer because a common sense rule "forces" them to use the bathroom of their birth gender? It's making a mountain out of a mole hill for effect. I can understand actual harm that African Americans suffer as a result of racial discrimination but cannot understand the real harm that transgender "suffer" because they can't choose their own bathroom. Can any transgender reasonably explain and answer my question? What's the big deal? Why should I even care?
First that "right" flies in the face of the rule of law and says an individual can unilaterally decide whatever they want and as long as they label it a "human right" they are free of criticism because whatever they choose to do becomes a sacred cow and any criticism becomes "discrimination". Nobody regardless of their gender gets everything they want all the time---that's the way life works. This is the worst kind of whining and self serving rationalization and "I'm a victim" mentality I've ever heard.
Just more "me, me, me" permissiveness and excess where anything goes as long as it feels good and "I want it". Extreme secular humanism and political correctness run amok. We seem obsessed with individual rights and forget that society has rights too. There always has to be a balance.
And second why do I and society even care if transgender people can choose their own bathroom? What's the big deal? What actual harm do transgender individuals suffer because a common sense rule "forces" them to use the bathroom of their birth gender? It's making a mountain out of a mole hill for effect. I can understand actual harm that African Americans suffer as a result of racial discrimination but cannot understand the real harm that transgender "suffer" because they can't choose their own bathroom. Can any transgender reasonably explain and answer my question? What's the big deal? Why should I even care?
16
I'm not transgendered, but I'll be happy to answer your question. Imagine a person, born with male genitalia, who is transgendered- they feel deeply that they are a woman. They dress as a woman, after consulting with doctors they get hormone treatments, and, eventually, they get gender-reassignment surgery. They now look female, which matches their gender identity. Unless they can get their birth certificate changed (which is difficult or impossible in many state) they must use the men's room. Do you believe a woman, walking into a men's room, doesn't run a high risk for harassment or assault?
Now let's consider that same individual before surgery- they dress as a woman, look like a woman- but it's even harder for them to get their birth certificate changed- in North Carolina, specifically, it's impossible, as an affidavit from a doctor testifying to performing the surgery is required (or a doctor who's examined them post-op). Again, do you believe that person will not be subject to abuse or harassment if they use the men's room?
Now, please explain what harm could occur if that person uses the women's room?
Now let's consider that same individual before surgery- they dress as a woman, look like a woman- but it's even harder for them to get their birth certificate changed- in North Carolina, specifically, it's impossible, as an affidavit from a doctor testifying to performing the surgery is required (or a doctor who's examined them post-op). Again, do you believe that person will not be subject to abuse or harassment if they use the men's room?
Now, please explain what harm could occur if that person uses the women's room?
1
Transgender people as a whole suffer a greater percentage of assault, abuse, and discrimination than almost any other minority group. By forcing a transgender person to use a bathroom corresponding with the sex on their birth certificate, you put them at even greater risk of being verbally or physically assaulted. If someone who looks entirely female, but was born male, walks into the men's room what kind of reaction do you think there is going to be? What if someone who looks completely male walks into the women's room?
Most opponents I see say they don't want to see men in a women's room but with legislation like NC that's exactly what will happen. The only difference is those muscled, bearded, deep voiced men will have been born female.
Most opponents I see say they don't want to see men in a women's room but with legislation like NC that's exactly what will happen. The only difference is those muscled, bearded, deep voiced men will have been born female.
1
The law in actuality denies access to any bathroom for many trans people. If you look like you don't belong in the bathroom for your birth-assigned gender, you will be in compliance with the law, but will be redirected to use the other bathroom at best or harassed or stomped at worse. To avoid harassment and law breaking, many trans people will have no choice but to stay home. Not having access to a bathroom at work means not having access to work. But trans people are a very small group of people affect e by this law. The much larger group is cisgender women who don't pass someone's idea of being feminine enough to use the ladies' room. These women too are at high risk of harassment and assault.
This is going time to haunt women, women in sports. When "men" are winning in women's tennis, basketball and soccer maybe you'll get it. You really think any woman could have beat Jenner in any event? Dream on.
Just like the support for for high testosterone "women", 3.5 billion women are put at a competitive disadvantage for the political correctness of supporting a minuscule percentage of the population.
Just like the support for for high testosterone "women", 3.5 billion women are put at a competitive disadvantage for the political correctness of supporting a minuscule percentage of the population.
16
yes, because peeing may some day be an olympic event!
This bill was a calculated pretext by NC Republicans to pass a witches brew of conservative legislation under the guise of a solving a non-existent transgender bathroom issue. It was amazing that such a sweeping piece of legislation could have spontaneously and miraculously emerged from a 12 hour “emergency” session.
GOP legislators threw transgenders under the bus, putting them at risk of physical violence, cost the state thousands of real jobs to solve an imaginary problem and painted NC as a backwoods state. It is unlikely that any legislature has ever done so much damage so quickly to a state.
GOP legislators threw transgenders under the bus, putting them at risk of physical violence, cost the state thousands of real jobs to solve an imaginary problem and painted NC as a backwoods state. It is unlikely that any legislature has ever done so much damage so quickly to a state.
18
Well if we could only accept, respect, and treat all people as we would like to be; we wouldn't be having this debate.
16
So true. So true. So many good solutions here have been ignored. So many chances for deepening mutual understanding and moving forward together have been lost. A failure of democratic process--which depends on some good will, and respect for one's opponents, and hard work, and perseverance over time, and creative compromise, and more love all around--has led to this legal war with all sides pulling out their big guns and firing away, simply using whatever power they have, mostly to gain more power, and then misrepresenting and demonizing anyone who thinks differently. And it looks as if the collateral legal damage is going to be be serious.
1
religious extremists can't thrive in an environment of equality and mutual respect, because that implies that everyone else is just as good as they are.
1
If laws and constitutional statements are not reinterpreted, we wouldn't have been able to progress as a nation and society. The prime principle of this nation, for the people, by the people, originated in a time where "people" were only white men, active in politics, where children were just offspring, not people, and women were objects. We the people had come a long way, why not "sex" and gender?
9
Laws and the Constitution are not supposed to be "reinterpreted." They are supposed to be changed or amended.
Laws are best when they are created in response to an actual, not imagined problem. If sys-men start going into bathrooms and accosting women, we have an issue. If transgender people go into bathrooms and pee, we can all calm down. Legislating for imagined issues like the government seizing guns are why we have such poor data on gun ownership and deaths, and why gun trafficking is still widespread. For the record, colonial governments created a gun registry, and seized guns, but only to arm the militia.
10
The United States has been segregating public bathrooms by sex since cities grew urbane enough to offer separate facilities for men and women. The primary reason for this is sexual modesty, not fear of sexual assault. In Upton Sinclair’s novel “Main Street,” free-spirited, liberal-minded, progressive Carol Milford’s first major contribution to the frontier town of Gopher Prairie, Minnesota, is the construction of a public restroom for women. After arriving in Gopher Prairie from St. Paul, Carol notices that the farm women who came to town in their horse-drawn wagons refuse to use the town’s only public restroom because they had to share it with men. Instead, they walk out onto the prairie and find a bush to squat behind. Gopher Prairie’s public restroom for women become a symbol of small-town enlightenment. The only new thing about the North Carolina law is that it specifies “sex” means “biological sex.” It was created to counter the odd notion that gender identity instead of hormones, chromosomes, genitalia and reproductive organs determines sex
4
I agree. This legislation was in search of a problem.
2
Exactly, so why did the Democratic-led Charlotte city council see this as an issue to pursue and pass a law on? This started the whole show.
This case transcends the question of who uses which bathroom. It is about democracy and whether any limits exist on the executive's power to sweep aside timeless social norms and expectations of personal privacy by "interpreting" a statute that no member of Congress ever dreamt would be used for such a purpose. It is also about whether words have any meaning, or whether we are already living in an Orwellian world where two plus two makes five if the government so decrees, and the the "existence of external reality" is simply irrelevant.
Do I exaggerate? Listen to the ACLU lawyer quoted in this story who says that the North Carolina dispute is about who is really a man or a woman, so "there's no question it's about sex."
Uh, huh. In other words, "fair is foul, and foul is fair" if saying so serves "progressive" ends.
Do I exaggerate? Listen to the ACLU lawyer quoted in this story who says that the North Carolina dispute is about who is really a man or a woman, so "there's no question it's about sex."
Uh, huh. In other words, "fair is foul, and foul is fair" if saying so serves "progressive" ends.
22
"[This] ...is about democracy and whether any limits exist on the executive's power to sweep aside timeless social norms and expectations of personal privacy ..."
If the executive you are talking about is the governor of North Carolina, then you are correct. There has never existed any social norm or expectation of privacy that permitted government to demand proof of one's genitalia or genes in order to receive access to a public accommodation.
The pretext that the Governor of North Carolina truly believed, when he signed this statute, and then filed suit to enforce it, that he he was not required to consider its constitutionality or legality, is the same logical fallacy as claiming that the Civil War was not about slavery ... but rather about technicalities of federal-state relations.
If the executive you are talking about is the governor of North Carolina, then you are correct. There has never existed any social norm or expectation of privacy that permitted government to demand proof of one's genitalia or genes in order to receive access to a public accommodation.
The pretext that the Governor of North Carolina truly believed, when he signed this statute, and then filed suit to enforce it, that he he was not required to consider its constitutionality or legality, is the same logical fallacy as claiming that the Civil War was not about slavery ... but rather about technicalities of federal-state relations.
Once upon a time, "timeless social norms" included slavery (confirmed in both the OT and NT), polygamy (rules for it appear in the OT and Sephardic Jews in countries allowing multiple wives can still practice it. There is even the parable of the groom and the 12 brides in the NT that is seen by many as condoning, or at least not forbidding it. Segregation was supposedly a "timeless social norm" (there's a tape of Nixon saying he opposed abortion, but could see the acceptability if the fetus was of "mixed race." Women as property of their fathers and later their husbands was a "timeless social norm," as was the class structure of a ruling class (usually "divinely chosen" bloodlines) and a peasant class. Eating with one's fingers was once the only way to eat and when the fork was invented in the 11th century, the Christian Church called it a violation of God's will and banned its use until it finally gave in in the 18th century. Denying women pain mediation was once the Christian norm until 50 years after anasthesia was invented.
Traditionally, children born intersexed (hermaphrodites with elements of both male and female genitals) were surgically altered just after birth to remove one set of organs and enhance the other. Doctors often made the male/female choice without even consulting the parents.
The only reason we have not had to confront gender dysphoria and gender reassignment until today is that science has finally learned how to do it.
Traditionally, children born intersexed (hermaphrodites with elements of both male and female genitals) were surgically altered just after birth to remove one set of organs and enhance the other. Doctors often made the male/female choice without even consulting the parents.
The only reason we have not had to confront gender dysphoria and gender reassignment until today is that science has finally learned how to do it.
Why to you want to protect the "timeless social norms" that left transgendered people left out, shunned, beaten, and killed? They're the most assaulted and murdered minority in America.
When confronted with the ridiculous situation of forcing medically transitioned people into the restroom corresponding to their gender assigned at birth, supporters of HB 2 continue to say that they are concerned about potential predators, not transgender people. Not only is that scenario not happening in the many places across the country with non-discrimination ordinances, the law requires a birth certificate instead of a driver's license. Driver's licenses are easier to change in most states, usually by court order. Some states like South Carolina will not change a birth certificate even after gender reassignment surgery. Plus, no one carries around their birth certificate, demonstrating that drafters of the law do not really care about enforcing it or protecting anyone, but simply seek to deny transgender people's right to function and exist. The fight is about so much more than bathrooms.
26
The North Carolina law does not require people to carry birth certificates. It requires them to use bathrooms that correspond with their biological sex as indicated on their birth certificate. To prosecute a person who claims to have been falsely cited, the state would have to produce a copy of the person birth certificate. It’s odd that the state would add a reference to birth certificate. The sex designation on birth certificates can be changed, but humans are not among the species that can change sex after birth. Hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery and—in the most severe case—“sex reassignment” surgery may have some therapeutic value for people who suffer from gender dysphoria patients. They reduce the incongruity between perception and reality, but not even the doctors who prescribe the hormones or perform the operations contend they change a person’s sex. The main reason for the North Carolina law is sexual modesty, not fear of sexual assault.
3
The argument in support of this nonsense claims that a transgender "man" or "woman" will be emotionally and psychologically damaged by using the restroom which corresponds with their biological sex. They MUST be allowed to use the restroom of their preference which corresponds with how they see themselves at the current time.
But what about all of the normal people who are comfortable using the restroom of their biological sex. Why should women have to deal with biological men invading their restrooms or locker rooms. That will be offensive, stressful and insulting to many women. Do they not have privacy rights?
This article (and the AG) seeks to conflate racial segregation based on white supremacy with separate bathrooms/changing areas based on sex. That argument doesn't hold, not least of which is because there is no supremacist reasoning behind sex-segregated restrooms. It's because of privacy and dignity.
But what about all of the normal people who are comfortable using the restroom of their biological sex. Why should women have to deal with biological men invading their restrooms or locker rooms. That will be offensive, stressful and insulting to many women. Do they not have privacy rights?
This article (and the AG) seeks to conflate racial segregation based on white supremacy with separate bathrooms/changing areas based on sex. That argument doesn't hold, not least of which is because there is no supremacist reasoning behind sex-segregated restrooms. It's because of privacy and dignity.
3
Being transgender strikes me as an unhealthy abnormality, not a sex. I am bipolar. It, too, is an unhealthy abnormality. It is my job to try to conform to the normal, not vice versa. The same for transgenders. They have a problem like me. Those who pretend they are normal are taking equal rights too far.
16
Bathroom access is just the beginning. Very soon, probably under 3 years, the refusal to play along with the notion that sex and gender are separate will be a thought crime so grave that one must be punished as only "bigots" should. This will include accusation of hate speech, suspension/expulsion from school, firing from one's job, and boycott/attempt to close any business or institution guilty of failure to capitulate. Just for calling a 'he', she.
12
I cannot but think that it would --- or will, I guess, at least in some southern states --- be rather disturbing to see men dressed as women using the men's bathroom, and, though less so, women dressed as men in the ladies' room. For instance, how do you explain that to your 5-year-old? Do you go into gender identity, pretend it's Halloween, or just say the poor man must be crazy? Lawmakers who have voted this in don't seem to realize what a bizarre spectacle this is going to create.
3
Any five year old brought up by intelligent, reasoning adults won't bat an eye at "bizarre" people in WCs. To a child, all grown-ups look more or less alike -- every one of them fascinating in his or her own way.
Stop fussing.
Stop fussing.
1
Here in NYC, folks have been allowed to use the bathroom that conforms to their identity for a long time. It hasn't been a problem. When kids see transpeople, they often don't even think it noteworthy. If they do, they are curious, not scared or disturbed. (Violence disturbs children; transgression of social rules they don't even understand, not so much.) When they do, this is a classic "learning moment," in that they will observe closely how their parents react and treat this person as a guide for how they should behave. If they ask about it, the comfort and candor of the parents will teach them a lesson. Make it one of respect and tolerance.
The cases being quoted have to do with discrimination, specifically employment discrimination where proven harm in the form of lost employment/wages occurred. No material harm results from NC's bathroom bill, it is about privacy and security, now compromised by the DOJ's questionable legalizing of criminal trespass.
Actually, the entire issue is about women's rights. Doesn't matter if some women are alright with biomen using women's facilities. What matters is most are horrified at the thought. Reassuring them and restoring their sense of security is obligatory, as NC have done.
In the end, the question isn't about whether or how much the DOJ is stretching law, but why? Why couldn't they do what North Carolina did, which was to go the legislative process? The answer is easy, the legislative process, from their point, has been blocked for some time now.
Nonetheless, still doesn't justify abuse of exec authority, legislate by decree, and last resort forced legislation from bench, all troubling conduct established by the Obama administration in recent years.
They need to be careful: Congress is already in open defiance of Obama. It could easily spread to the courts, increasingly getting dumped-on with useless cases because of Obama Stalemateitis. Already one SCOTUS ruling in the pipe on immigration. Even a stalemate ruling would indirectly affirm executive overreach, setting the stage for future flat refusals. Maybe even a new hashtag: #askthemtobuzzoff
Actually, the entire issue is about women's rights. Doesn't matter if some women are alright with biomen using women's facilities. What matters is most are horrified at the thought. Reassuring them and restoring their sense of security is obligatory, as NC have done.
In the end, the question isn't about whether or how much the DOJ is stretching law, but why? Why couldn't they do what North Carolina did, which was to go the legislative process? The answer is easy, the legislative process, from their point, has been blocked for some time now.
Nonetheless, still doesn't justify abuse of exec authority, legislate by decree, and last resort forced legislation from bench, all troubling conduct established by the Obama administration in recent years.
They need to be careful: Congress is already in open defiance of Obama. It could easily spread to the courts, increasingly getting dumped-on with useless cases because of Obama Stalemateitis. Already one SCOTUS ruling in the pipe on immigration. Even a stalemate ruling would indirectly affirm executive overreach, setting the stage for future flat refusals. Maybe even a new hashtag: #askthemtobuzzoff
4
In American law "material harm" can include a person's mental and emotional health. it definitely includes their physical safety. There is substantial research indicating that forcing a transperson to identify as their "designated at birth" gender, or behave in gender specific behavior opposite their identified gender does significant mental and emotional harm. Further, their is also data demonstrating that tradespeople's physical safety is compromised by forcing them into bathrooms. locker-rooms, etc. contrary to their identified gender.
So you are simply factually wrong that there is no material harm caused to tradespeople by the law.
So you are simply factually wrong that there is no material harm caused to tradespeople by the law.
@Cormac
What you say applies exponentially to bio women, whose feeling of security and privacy is severely violated simply in the knowledge that biomen have unfettered access to their facilities. So legally, your rationale is ludicrous.
Where your argument could work is outside of the courts, on a human level and case-by-case basis, for reasonable accommodation in separate facilities where possible, especially at places of learning and work. Similar to treatment of the handicapped today. These are already being done.
What you say applies exponentially to bio women, whose feeling of security and privacy is severely violated simply in the knowledge that biomen have unfettered access to their facilities. So legally, your rationale is ludicrous.
Where your argument could work is outside of the courts, on a human level and case-by-case basis, for reasonable accommodation in separate facilities where possible, especially at places of learning and work. Similar to treatment of the handicapped today. These are already being done.
1
The chaos that will ensue will be because there is insufficient legal definition of what constitutes "man" or "woman" outside of biological sex. I am a cisgendered man. If tomorrow I declare myself 'female' in order to certify my business as a Woman-Owned Business for the sake of gaining preference in a federal contract bid, who are you to say I am lying. Try to define what constitutes 'woman' outside of genitalia. All presumed appearances and behaviors are sexist, discriminatory, and ultimately too vague anyhow. Once this is figured out, it will be the end of sex as a protected class and the end of feminism.
10
like everything else, it is not an issue until somebody makes an issue of it.
if you claim to be a woman on a federal contract, and sign it, certifying it to be true and accurate, and then fail the vetting process, you will lose the contract and maybe face prosecution, not because of your gender, but because you falsified a document.
is it worth it?
if you claim to be a woman on a federal contract, and sign it, certifying it to be true and accurate, and then fail the vetting process, you will lose the contract and maybe face prosecution, not because of your gender, but because you falsified a document.
is it worth it?
So that children born intersexed (hermaphroditic) can claim both sexes? And women with XXY chromosomes also have that option. 2,000 years ago, the only way to determine sex was the either/or of plumbing. Today, we know that sexual identity, sexual preferences, sexual orientation reside in the electro-chemical and physical construct brain, not the groin.
If you really want to go through the necessary years of therapy, having to live as a woman for years while taking body-altering female hormones, and, finally, having reassignment surgery just to claim you have a "Woman-owned business," then there is far more at stake in you than your sexual identity. It's your sanity.
If you really want to go through the necessary years of therapy, having to live as a woman for years while taking body-altering female hormones, and, finally, having reassignment surgery just to claim you have a "Woman-owned business," then there is far more at stake in you than your sexual identity. It's your sanity.
Oh please. A handful of exceptions should not dictate the rules for half the population. This is nothing more than men demanding to be treated like women.
There should only be unisex bathrooms. Americans have such hang ups about their genitals. I was at a concert one time and during intermission the ladies room had a line ten miles long and as usual the men's room had no line. A young woman walked into the men's room and when one guy objected she said "don't worry grandpa you're no big deal". No other people objected and there were no riots or heart attacks.
9
Restrooms are one thing. What about the women's shower in gyms?
1
Since we now know that Rights come from a Democratic Administration, not the Creator, and since we now know that Rights require an entitlement, not just an opportunity, it is clear that anyone, of any gender, is entitled to taxpayer financed abortion services.
Fear of others should not be allowed to exist in the United States of America aka The Home of the Brave! The Donald the lucky sperm narcissist is preying on cowardly angry white males who he has fooled into believing that he who speaks of himself in the third person can protect them. It is so unfortunate that the poorly educated are being driven like cows to their own slaughter by their mis cast votes. The North Carolina Governor who constantly reminds us he heads our nations ninth largest State is both a coward follower and a fear monger corralling as many rubes as he can by his lies about protecting his electorate from boogeymen that are created and not in fact realities. GOP Governors slash education budgets first in order to keep their citizens malleable. I pray Godspeed to those who will rise up and refuse to be controlled through faux fear. We have only fearful cowards and their masses to fear now. God Bless the Home of the Brave!
3
My problem with this is that like all laws, there is a slippery slope. EG; handicap parking to name one. Just look at how that is abused. This new law allowing anyone to use any restroom or locker room will backfire. I can imagine a HS Girls locker room after a sporting event being invaded by perverts.
There is no conflict using the 1964 law. The problem people are having with the trans issue is that they don't understand what a transgender person is. When an individual makes the change, they are what they changed into. More correctly, the person that transitioned always ways what they transitioned to, they just needed a little help from medical science to be able to fully realize themselves.
The same people that are having fits over the trans issue are the same ones that think that being gay is a choice, a lifestyle. It most certainly is not. Sexual orientation is something we are all born with. So is the transgender condition.
The trans issue is not an issue about protecting anyone from any disruptive change in society. It is an issue of ignorance, fear, hatred and just plain stupidity. These are common themes that permeate conservative politics. The GOP primary revealed that condition to the world.
Discrimination based on sex is against the law. North Carolina is in violation of the 1964 civil rights act.
The same people that are having fits over the trans issue are the same ones that think that being gay is a choice, a lifestyle. It most certainly is not. Sexual orientation is something we are all born with. So is the transgender condition.
The trans issue is not an issue about protecting anyone from any disruptive change in society. It is an issue of ignorance, fear, hatred and just plain stupidity. These are common themes that permeate conservative politics. The GOP primary revealed that condition to the world.
Discrimination based on sex is against the law. North Carolina is in violation of the 1964 civil rights act.
26
'“You usually don’t see the showdown,” Mr. Sears said. But in an election year, such showdowns can become a strategy, a way of trying to mobilize voters.'
Yes, and one very energized and angry segment of the electorate is already aggrieved in a variety of ways about the way the world is changing. They are folks who tend to believe that everyone except heterosexuals are "perverts," who should, at best, be isolated from society at large. Some of them also are rooted in right-wing Christianity in which God creates and loves only the heterosexuals while others are either terrible evil sinners or simply sick.
Sadly, they don't understand that transgendered folks have been there all along doing no harm; that insisting upon use of one's birth gender for bathroom choice will send folks who look and sound like men into the women's room; and that the law is laughably unenforceable.
Yes, and one very energized and angry segment of the electorate is already aggrieved in a variety of ways about the way the world is changing. They are folks who tend to believe that everyone except heterosexuals are "perverts," who should, at best, be isolated from society at large. Some of them also are rooted in right-wing Christianity in which God creates and loves only the heterosexuals while others are either terrible evil sinners or simply sick.
Sadly, they don't understand that transgendered folks have been there all along doing no harm; that insisting upon use of one's birth gender for bathroom choice will send folks who look and sound like men into the women's room; and that the law is laughably unenforceable.
7
I differ with you. The single question is how is sex determined and who gets to make the determination. The 1964 civil rights act explicitly prohibits discrimination based on "sex". A person born female who transitions to male, grows a beard, removes the breasts, dresses as a man, etc. might cause a ruckus in the ladies rest room. That person should have the right to choose the men's room.
32
Interpretation of these new 'bathroom/locker room' laws requires the courts to define gender.
Presumably, for transgender people to be allowed to use whichever bathroom/locker room/changing room they 'feel comfortable in' the government has to legally define gender as whatever gender an individual 'identifies' with?
Presumably, for transgender people to be allowed to use whichever bathroom/locker room/changing room they 'feel comfortable in' the government has to legally define gender as whatever gender an individual 'identifies' with?
11
This is the crux of the matter -- legally defining gender as something that can be individually and subjectively determined. I think that there's a problem in this definition and I think the courts need to take this weakness into account. This doesn't mean that I want transgender individuals discriminated against.
5
As Rebekah Jensen pointed out in comments above, The US State Department and all (AFAIK) states do allow transgender individuals to change the gender marker on a drivers license. A quick Google search shows Maryland requires a court order changing the person's name, a letter from the physician who is supervising hormone treatment, and other documentation. A medical review board them accepts or rejects the application to change the state ID.
It seems to me, that NC could have said gender on ID not birth certificate. Who carries around a birth certificate after all? If someone has gone through the process to legally change their gender, they are not some predatory male who "feels" like a woman one day and wants to peek in a ladies bathroom.
The upshot; there is already laws in place to change gender legally. They may not be fair to some sincere people, but they are there.
It seems to me, that NC could have said gender on ID not birth certificate. Who carries around a birth certificate after all? If someone has gone through the process to legally change their gender, they are not some predatory male who "feels" like a woman one day and wants to peek in a ladies bathroom.
The upshot; there is already laws in place to change gender legally. They may not be fair to some sincere people, but they are there.
Like 0.3% of the population is Transgender like me. If we can't be protected by the Civil Rights Act, no one will EVER protect us. We are a small, weak community. The only reason that we have any rights at all is because the LGB people (all sexual orientation) accepted the T (gender identity) and helped us.
We are real human beings, but you will almost never notice us on the street. We need others to protect us. We will always lose by ourselves.
I hope so so hard that this law is found discriminatory. I am not a man, I am not a sexual predator. The last person I'd ever want to hurt would be another woman. I am not living in a delusion, and if I am, the only way to cure me is to kill me, because I cannot live as I did before I transitioned.
These articles have been making me cry on a consistent basis recently. That huge sign saying "No Men in Women's Bathrooms," is horrifying. To have my entire existence and fundamental meaning be denigrated by this vulgar, simplistic, and incredibly powerful sentence hurts so much.
Every time someone harasses me or hurts me, which happens regularly, I try to understand what I did to deserve to be abused by other people. I'm always baffled, and that makes it all the more painful.
We are real human beings, but you will almost never notice us on the street. We need others to protect us. We will always lose by ourselves.
I hope so so hard that this law is found discriminatory. I am not a man, I am not a sexual predator. The last person I'd ever want to hurt would be another woman. I am not living in a delusion, and if I am, the only way to cure me is to kill me, because I cannot live as I did before I transitioned.
These articles have been making me cry on a consistent basis recently. That huge sign saying "No Men in Women's Bathrooms," is horrifying. To have my entire existence and fundamental meaning be denigrated by this vulgar, simplistic, and incredibly powerful sentence hurts so much.
Every time someone harasses me or hurts me, which happens regularly, I try to understand what I did to deserve to be abused by other people. I'm always baffled, and that makes it all the more painful.
246
You are protected just like everyone else is.
It would still be a crime to attack you or to rob you or commit any crime where you are the victim.
You can go to the bathroom, just not the one of your choice.
This should not make you cry.
Most woman are scared to go to a bathroom if there are men there. for good reasons.
You have to respect that and for you to impose your presents on them is despicable.
It would still be a crime to attack you or to rob you or commit any crime where you are the victim.
You can go to the bathroom, just not the one of your choice.
This should not make you cry.
Most woman are scared to go to a bathroom if there are men there. for good reasons.
You have to respect that and for you to impose your presents on them is despicable.
7
I am sure it hurts but rest assured that it is no fault of yours that there are so many ignorant people out there who are desperate to cloak their prejudice as religious freedom or public safety and so many politicians eager to exploit this for their own reasons. Although it may be of little immediate comfort to individuals still facing violence, discrimination and humiliation every day, there is an ever increasing horizon of hope for minorities, such as the transgender community, which comes not just from a fairer and more expansive application of legal and constitutional protections but also from the broader, societal movement, first towards tolerance, then towards acceptance of the rights of others, until even the most fearful amongst us will one day wonder what all this fuss was about. We are not there yet but we are getting there. Unfortunately, this change does not come without the sacrifice of those like yourself who have the courage to live their lives openly, as who they are.
2
While you may be one of 0.3% of the population, please know you do not stand alone. Millions are standing with you and fully affirm the woman you are. I am sorry for the pain that sign-bearing people have brought you and the tears you have shed. Please consider this a virtual hug and a vow tha as one of the LGB, I will continue always to fight for the rights of T.
7
Just another reason progressives should switch their focus from national issues more toward local and state organizing in preparation for the massive gerrymandering which will again take place after the 2020 census. The (often extreme) Right has acquired disproportionate political power in places such as North Carolina and Virginia because it focused on state legislatures a decade ago and were, thus, in a position to seize power after the 2010 census.
46
Having separate facilities is segregation and discrimination. though i am sure that most of the people who passed the laws did not intend the law to apply to such facilities, they did not exclude them. Is transgender really the legal issue?
3
Because public restrooms do not and have not ever required people to show their birth certificates, or their sexual organs, to enter, we can assume that "Men" meant people who identify as male and "Women" meant people who identify as female. As my trans child (female to male) has taught me, there is a difference for people like him between biological sex and gender identity. He identifies male, dresses male, looks male and when he goes into the Men's room it is to mind his business, do his business, and get on about his business. What is between his legs is his own business and not the state of North Carolina's or anyone else's. Doesn't he also deserve privacy and the right to pee in peace?
154
Restrooms are segregated by sex, and always have been. Your child can identify as whatever he or she wants, but that doesn't change his or her physical sex. Feelings are irrelevant.
1
He and all transgenders deserve the same privacy. These bigots and haters won't get away with this because no one will get away with checking everyone's sex organs prior to entry into a public restroom.
Yes, of course. But it's where he pees and that enters into the space of others.
I'm still not sure how this would practically work.
If we are now treating people based not on their biological gender but rather the gender they identify with -- then legally can't any man or woman use any bathroom or facilities they choose?
How does one determine whether or not someone is 'actually' transgender or simply 'claiming' to be transgender? How can anyone prove what is inside another person's mind?
If we are now treating people based not on their biological gender but rather the gender they identify with -- then legally can't any man or woman use any bathroom or facilities they choose?
How does one determine whether or not someone is 'actually' transgender or simply 'claiming' to be transgender? How can anyone prove what is inside another person's mind?
46
Different states require different conditions that must be met in order to change one's sex on their birth certificate. Not all states require that a person have sex reconstruction surgery. So to say that a birth certificate can be used to prove biological sex is pretty much an admission that biological sex is not based on anatomical features. It's a stupid law.
1
And?
People in the U.S. need to get out more. First time I was in Belgium, unisex bathrooms. Men and women going into the same restroom to pee, etc. You know what? Everyone minded their own business, did what they needed to do, and left. I have to admit, it was strange at first compared to what I was used to. Then I realized ... whatever. It's no big deal.
People in the U.S. need to get out more. First time I was in Belgium, unisex bathrooms. Men and women going into the same restroom to pee, etc. You know what? Everyone minded their own business, did what they needed to do, and left. I have to admit, it was strange at first compared to what I was used to. Then I realized ... whatever. It's no big deal.
4
The answer, of course, is that there is no way to tell!
Therefore, inevitably, any and all males who claim "femininity" must be allowed to freely enter women's facilities. Even when young girls and small children are present.
Therefore, inevitably, any and all males who claim "femininity" must be allowed to freely enter women's facilities. Even when young girls and small children are present.
1
The 1964 act specifically discusses employment activities, not bathroom behavior, baking cakes or looking cross-eyed at someone. At this time there is no congressionally passed definition of sex or whether trannies are a protected species. NC is correct that the issue needs to be permanently settled by congress, not by the courts or ad hoc regulations by non-elected officials. At a time when the economy is still in shambles after 8 years, terrorism is on the rise and race relations are at a new low, it's just plain moronic to be wasting time with a problem that is not even a problem.
19
If the 1964 act specifically discusses employment activities, not bathroom behavior, why does the article show a man removing a sign for a segregated bathroom? Also, equal access to a bathroom at your workplace is an employment activity or condition.
And yes, things need to be settled by Congress, nor the courts, until of course Congress makes a law you don't like, and then the courts need to settle it (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., anyone?)
And yes, things need to be settled by Congress, nor the courts, until of course Congress makes a law you don't like, and then the courts need to settle it (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., anyone?)
3
It wasn't a problem until NC made it a problem. And it was done just to score political points, not to prevent predators in bathrooms. Nobody is going to be checking birth certificates or body parts at the entrance in any case, so what is the point of the law?
2
The words "man" and "woman" are NOT ambiguous. They are based upon indisputable biological, genetic, anatomical differences.
Your reference to Obergefeld is spot on: the idea that the EP clause requires states to ignore sex differences in granting marriage licenses is absurd on its face.
There can simply be no dispute about "who is really a man or a woman". XY = male; XX = woman. Period. No room for interpretation.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, the itty bitty, teensy weensy minority of folks confused about their sex present no issue, because no one cares. If Bruce Jenner wants to pretend to be a woman, and make a lot of money doing if, great. More power to him. And no man gives a rat's patoot about who uses the rest rooms with him. (Ask the girls in District 211 if they like dressing with a biological male) The odds of running afoul of NC's law approach 0 unless, like the leftist trolls in Charlotte, they decide to pick a fight to make a point.
And consider the NCAA, willing to go to the wall to ensure that Bruce Jenner could pee in the women's room, they expressly ban him from playing on women's teams. Which is it? If he;s actually a woman, the NCAA is acting in a flagrantly discriminatory fashion by precluding his participation in women's athletics, all without a peep from the solons at the NYT. while it obsesses over bathrooms.
Words do not change meanings. "Sex" means sex, not gender. Only Congress, not a lawless administration, can change a statute.
Your reference to Obergefeld is spot on: the idea that the EP clause requires states to ignore sex differences in granting marriage licenses is absurd on its face.
There can simply be no dispute about "who is really a man or a woman". XY = male; XX = woman. Period. No room for interpretation.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, the itty bitty, teensy weensy minority of folks confused about their sex present no issue, because no one cares. If Bruce Jenner wants to pretend to be a woman, and make a lot of money doing if, great. More power to him. And no man gives a rat's patoot about who uses the rest rooms with him. (Ask the girls in District 211 if they like dressing with a biological male) The odds of running afoul of NC's law approach 0 unless, like the leftist trolls in Charlotte, they decide to pick a fight to make a point.
And consider the NCAA, willing to go to the wall to ensure that Bruce Jenner could pee in the women's room, they expressly ban him from playing on women's teams. Which is it? If he;s actually a woman, the NCAA is acting in a flagrantly discriminatory fashion by precluding his participation in women's athletics, all without a peep from the solons at the NYT. while it obsesses over bathrooms.
Words do not change meanings. "Sex" means sex, not gender. Only Congress, not a lawless administration, can change a statute.
39
If there is "no room for interpretation", then logically this XX-chromosomed person should use the ladies' room: http://dianne.skoll.ca/img/tm,jpg
You have to realize that the real world is not cut and dried. There are always edge-cases and refusing to show any flexibility in our legislation guarantees a society full of strife.
You have to realize that the real world is not cut and dried. There are always edge-cases and refusing to show any flexibility in our legislation guarantees a society full of strife.
"There can simply be no dispute about "who is really a man or a woman". XY = male; XX = woman. Period. No room for interpretation. "
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency "How common is intersex" -
"a summary of statistics drawn from an article by Brown University researcher Anne Fausto-Sterling. The basis for that article was an extensive review of the medical literature from 1955 to 1998 aimed at producing numeric estimates for the frequency of sex variations."
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency "How common is intersex" -
"a summary of statistics drawn from an article by Brown University researcher Anne Fausto-Sterling. The basis for that article was an extensive review of the medical literature from 1955 to 1998 aimed at producing numeric estimates for the frequency of sex variations."
Actually, gender, like most things in life, is more complicated than that. In some countries, girls turn into boys at puberty. Intersex individuals have the opposite sexual organs to their chromosomes. And brain scans of transgender people can correlate more with the brains of those in the "opposite sex".
Life is complex, it's hardly ever black or white.
Here is a good article on the science, I've summarized some of it above : http://brainspongeblog.com/2015/10/29/boy-or-girl/
Life is complex, it's hardly ever black or white.
Here is a good article on the science, I've summarized some of it above : http://brainspongeblog.com/2015/10/29/boy-or-girl/
What's completely forgotten here is that the "transgender fight" is merely a smokescreen for the real purpose of the North Carolina bill: to prevent localities from raising the minimum wage. The corporate sponsors understood that even Republican legislators would not see the urgency of protecting shareholders from the threat of increased labor costs. So they wrapped it in a piece of raw meat (the bathroom provision) that they knew would greatly appeal to "morality," fear, ignorance, and bigotry. And the smokescreen would attract so much attention that the minimum wage prohibition would just sail through the legislature without anyone even noticing it.
The strategy seems to have succeeded spectacularly. And even if the Feds declare the bathroom provision unconstitutional, shareholders will still be protected. It's a win-win for everyone, except for workers. But they don't matter anyway.
The strategy seems to have succeeded spectacularly. And even if the Feds declare the bathroom provision unconstitutional, shareholders will still be protected. It's a win-win for everyone, except for workers. But they don't matter anyway.
178
Ockham's Razor would have the simplest explanation carry the day. "Gender" (in the neural or psychological sense) is, in the end, in the same category as "sex" (in the anatomical sense). Gender discrimination is. simply, sexual discrimination.
Ockham wins, NoCal loses.
Ockham wins, NoCal loses.
12
"Gender discrimination is. simply, sexual discrimination."
As a matter of fact, no.
There is no "neural gender", if by that you mean innate differences in the brain that indicate either male or female "gender".
By "psychological gender" I assume you mean the acquired social role - male or female - which children begin to learn at birth. This social role is not biologically fixed.
On the other hand, "sex" is a fixed biological characteristic. All genetically normal human beings are either of the male sex or the female sex. No human being can change sex.
Discrimination against women is based upon their biology - their sex. Gender expectations imposed on women can reflect this discrimination, but the basis remains their female sex.
As a matter of fact, no.
There is no "neural gender", if by that you mean innate differences in the brain that indicate either male or female "gender".
By "psychological gender" I assume you mean the acquired social role - male or female - which children begin to learn at birth. This social role is not biologically fixed.
On the other hand, "sex" is a fixed biological characteristic. All genetically normal human beings are either of the male sex or the female sex. No human being can change sex.
Discrimination against women is based upon their biology - their sex. Gender expectations imposed on women can reflect this discrimination, but the basis remains their female sex.
13
Everyone is paying so much attention to the bathroom part of this NC law that they overlook Part II of the bill, by which the state of NC overrides any local authority's ability to set minimum wages within that local government. Part III of this bill calls for the state to override any local authority's right to pass laws banning housing or employment discrimination, such as a local law passed in Charlotte, NC. People should understand that NC's HB2 is a wide-ranging law permitting discrimination in many ways and barring local authorities from fighting multiple forms of discrimination against members of the LGBT community.
213
The federal government also contends federal laws trump state laws. What if a city passed a law that decreed the minimum wage should be less than the state minimum wage?
We should separate the bathroom issues from other issues. Houston, which votes Democrat and has a lesbian mayor, recently repealed an ordinance that would have protected LGBTs from discrimination in housing and employment because it contained a bathroom clause that would have permitted bathroom access based on gender identity. Plano, Texas—which is an affluent, conservative North Dallas suburb—passed a bill that protects LGBTs in housing and employment but exempted bathrooms. As a result, liberal Houston has not law that protects LGBTs from housing and employment discrimination while conservative Plano does.
We should separate the bathroom issues from other issues. Houston, which votes Democrat and has a lesbian mayor, recently repealed an ordinance that would have protected LGBTs from discrimination in housing and employment because it contained a bathroom clause that would have permitted bathroom access based on gender identity. Plano, Texas—which is an affluent, conservative North Dallas suburb—passed a bill that protects LGBTs in housing and employment but exempted bathrooms. As a result, liberal Houston has not law that protects LGBTs from housing and employment discrimination while conservative Plano does.
"A creature of its time, the law prohibits discrimination because of “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
Since sex is determined by the Y chromosome, if someone has the SRY gene then they are male no matter how much they protest. It's that simple. To say otherwise is to show a lack of understanding of biology. Sort of like climate change deniers, "trans" people are deniers of their own sex.
Since sex is determined by the Y chromosome, if someone has the SRY gene then they are male no matter how much they protest. It's that simple. To say otherwise is to show a lack of understanding of biology. Sort of like climate change deniers, "trans" people are deniers of their own sex.
23
Ah, but you're not allowed to say that nowadays. If you point out the immutable biological fact that a human being cannot actually change sex, you are shouted down as a bigot.
Men can wear whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, but putting on a dress and taking hormones does not and cannot change the fact that they remain male.
Men can wear whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, but putting on a dress and taking hormones does not and cannot change the fact that they remain male.
8
Pardon me, WE assign MEANING to biology. Biology has no MEANING besides how we interpret it. Trans people are not like climate change deniers at all. Climate change does not require or have anything to do with MEANING.
3
"Ah, but you're not allowed to say that nowadays."
You just said it ... see the irony? The opposite viewpoint -- that trans people deserve equal rights with other people -- is the one that is creating all the controversy, and has moved a US State to pass a law regulating it. (Thereby turning American conservatism's self-definition inside-out as much as Donald Trump has.)
You just said it ... see the irony? The opposite viewpoint -- that trans people deserve equal rights with other people -- is the one that is creating all the controversy, and has moved a US State to pass a law regulating it. (Thereby turning American conservatism's self-definition inside-out as much as Donald Trump has.)
How about the fight to preserve women's private spaces from men?
44
Telling that it is the spectre of men invading women's restrooms predatorily that has some people up in arms. Well, deal with predator MEN, not trans women.
7
I think many women don't want to have to decide whether the person with a penis in their locker room is a "predator man" or a man who believes he is actually a woman.
1
Most people have unisex bathrooms in their house. It isn't a wild notion at all.
A stall in a bathroom is private and locked. Politicians are stoking imaginations with vivid images and no evidence at all.
It is the politics of divisiveness and hate.
People have created these laws attacking marginalized minorities not to address any problem at all, but to create political wedge issues.
It is unconstitutional. It is wrong.
A stall in a bathroom is private and locked. Politicians are stoking imaginations with vivid images and no evidence at all.
It is the politics of divisiveness and hate.
People have created these laws attacking marginalized minorities not to address any problem at all, but to create political wedge issues.
It is unconstitutional. It is wrong.
71
Porta potties are unisex. I've never seen a men only or female only porta potty.
3
I think the problem is that the standard metal toilet enclosures are not quite private enough.
1
David Parsons wrote:
Most people have unisex bathrooms in their house. It isn't a wild notion at all. A stall in a bathroom is private and locked.
David, unless you're patronizing wildly different women's rooms, understand that the stalls are open at top and bottom. As well, most have loosely fitting doors, and it is perfectly possible to apply your eye to the edge of one and see the person within.
Most people have unisex bathrooms in their house. It isn't a wild notion at all. A stall in a bathroom is private and locked.
David, unless you're patronizing wildly different women's rooms, understand that the stalls are open at top and bottom. As well, most have loosely fitting doors, and it is perfectly possible to apply your eye to the edge of one and see the person within.
So let's see. If North Carolina has its way, then people wearing skirts and high heels will be forced into the men's room. While others, with mustaches, beards and muscle shirts, will be using the ladies' room.
Way to go North Carolina! You really solved that one!
PS Who is going to enforce this and how?
Way to go North Carolina! You really solved that one!
PS Who is going to enforce this and how?
61
Men in skirts and high heels belong in the men's room. Fashion is irrelevant to sex. Men should be able to wear skirts and high heels, if that is their personal preference. That doesn't make them not-men.
4
Its not about superficial appearance. Transgendered individuals should not have to dress in some costume of the opposite gender to prove that they have "adopted" that gender. That sound like the fallback position for NC...."if you can grow a mustache"...."if you can grow breasts"......
Well, if the Second Amendment, written in the age of muskets, can be applied to assault weapons...
184
Unfortunately, the words present in the second amendment allow for arms without specifing what it is. This means it includes assualt weapons unless stated otherwise by some other part in the constituion.
Kira, obviously that's not an acceptable argument.
It's too rational.
It's too rational.
So basically, the federal government is set to outlaw single-sex facilities with no input from citizens and there isn't much we can do it about it.
37
No, not really. If North Carolina had not inserted itself into the bathroom habits of a very small minority of people, everything would have continued exactly as before. Meaning you could have continued to not notice transgender women in the public bathrooms you used.
88
I second what "AC" says but add that the will of the majority is irrelevant in determining the rights to the minority. Imagine the liberal and progressive majority of citizens in NYC making their "input" into a law that doubles the income tax rate and disallows subway use for all NYC residents who espouse conservative opinions....that would be the input of the citizens and then it would be law.
3
Where in the constitution is there a right to use a certain bathroom or a prohibition on the people deciding how to arrange their locker room / changing facilities in a privately owned establishment?
On the contrary, freedom of association is a right guaranteed to us in the law.
You want to conflate issues? You're conflating equal employment opportunity with forcing men and women to change and shower in the same locker rooms.
I am frankly tired of the Civil Rights Act being used to advance causes that are irrelevant to it. "We" as a country trafficked in slavery and then created a caste system. The Civil Rights Act was meant to dismantle that system and rightfully so. Not sure how "gender identity", an ill-defined term, comes to be protected by a shield erected to restore rights to formerly enslaved people.
On the contrary, freedom of association is a right guaranteed to us in the law.
You want to conflate issues? You're conflating equal employment opportunity with forcing men and women to change and shower in the same locker rooms.
I am frankly tired of the Civil Rights Act being used to advance causes that are irrelevant to it. "We" as a country trafficked in slavery and then created a caste system. The Civil Rights Act was meant to dismantle that system and rightfully so. Not sure how "gender identity", an ill-defined term, comes to be protected by a shield erected to restore rights to formerly enslaved people.
The drafters of a law can rarely anticipate all situations it might apply to. For this reason, it is wrong to ask what was in their minds. The point is, what does the law actually say -- partly its overt meaning, but partly its meaning in conjunction with the enormous body of law and legal interpretation which has been developed.
In this case, we have an example, where, whether or not the drafters of the law considered just what "sex" was, we now must. The fact that they (presumably) did not anticipate this does not mean we should somehow try to cast ourselves back to what we guess their mindset in 1964 was. We must consider the question they did not.
In this case, we have an example, where, whether or not the drafters of the law considered just what "sex" was, we now must. The fact that they (presumably) did not anticipate this does not mean we should somehow try to cast ourselves back to what we guess their mindset in 1964 was. We must consider the question they did not.
29
It's thrilling when sides argue and make their case- that laws (as is our Constitution) are living and breathing even amidst muddied waters.
2
Since the primary concern is that genetically male predators will enter women's bathrooms and showers and changing rooms, not the other way round, isn't a bill allowing them to do that merely another instance of tossing genetic females under the bus? And is this not one more sad tired instance of the rights of genetic females being trampled by genetic males?
For Loretta Lynch, a female African American, to announce that genetic females (more than half the nation) hard-won health, safety, and the pursuit of happiness -- since happiness does not co-exist with assault -- are to be thrown away to satisfy the desires of a handful of genetic males . . . the mind boggles. Does she see no allusions here to the pre-1865 plight of millions of enslaved women owned by a comparative handful of men?
I just watched the film Suffragette, about the fight for female suffrage in 1912 Britain. It is staggering how apt that 100-year-old struggle is today. As one character said, Never surrender. Never give up the fight.
For Loretta Lynch, a female African American, to announce that genetic females (more than half the nation) hard-won health, safety, and the pursuit of happiness -- since happiness does not co-exist with assault -- are to be thrown away to satisfy the desires of a handful of genetic males . . . the mind boggles. Does she see no allusions here to the pre-1865 plight of millions of enslaved women owned by a comparative handful of men?
I just watched the film Suffragette, about the fight for female suffrage in 1912 Britain. It is staggering how apt that 100-year-old struggle is today. As one character said, Never surrender. Never give up the fight.
46
Calm down, will you? I am a woman and I look feminine enough that I believe even NC potty police won't question my bona fide. I have absolutely no objection in sharing public restrooms not just with trans people but with actual men, as I have done many times in Italy, Scandinavia, China and other countries (incidentally you probably don't travel much). You know what happened? Nothing. Everybody went into their stall and that was that. If your definition of liberty and pursuit of happiness is a segregated bathroom, it is a sad testimony to the degradation of feminism.
74
As far as I can tell, men have always been able to dress as women, enter a women's bathroom or locker room, and prey on women. That predatory behavior was and still is illegal; if there's a problem with men dressed as women misbehaving in the ladies' loo, (and it doesn't really seem to be a big issue, like child hunger, cancer, climate change), I don't see how this new ordinance will change things. This law isn't going to keep a predatory person out of women's johns or locker rooms. It's just going to make life harder for a man who identifies as a woman from finding a safe place to pee, take a shower, change her clothes. And we'll have women who've transed to men peeing in the sink because women's restrooms don't have urinals. Can we please worry about something important?
37
I certainly would not want my 10 year old daughter in that bathroom with men, transgender or otherwise.
13
How pathetic it is that backward, ignorant people still make excuses for their senseless bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, racism and xenophobia in a way that tears the fabric of the country apart at a time when we need every American defending our country.
71
How pathetic that a handful of men can demand the right to enter women's private spaces!
34
"senseless bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, racism and xenophobia "
Wow, you're throwing the book of sins at anyone who questions forcing women to accept any and all males in restrooms.
The trouble is that - apart from the questionable accusation of "bigotry" - your list has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
Transgender is not an innate sexual orientation, so homophobia does not apply. It is a choice or compulsion to socially present oneself as the opposite sex.
Wow, you're throwing the book of sins at anyone who questions forcing women to accept any and all males in restrooms.
The trouble is that - apart from the questionable accusation of "bigotry" - your list has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
Transgender is not an innate sexual orientation, so homophobia does not apply. It is a choice or compulsion to socially present oneself as the opposite sex.
8
They are not making excuses for their bigotry. They are bigots and proud of it. The only difference is that they define themselves as good American patriots.
1
Shared bathrooms, I dont see it as an issue, some people are just too prudish...?
12
@Michael:
You, as a man, either don't know or don't care about the legitimate privacy and security issues WOMEN face when random males are allowed unchallenged access into women's bathrooms and changing rooms.
Prudishness has absolutely nothing to do with it.
No enforceable definition of a "real transgender person of goodwill", as opposed to a "phony transgender up to no good", is possible. So there's no way to allow one access and not the other.
Therefore, free bathroom and change room access for transgender "women" would allow ANY man who claims to "feel like he's a woman" to walk into places where women are partly or entirely unclothed. And women would have no legal right to ask him to leave. Even if he looks 100% male and is making them feel scared or uncomfortable by his behaviour.
That is the problem!
You, as a man, either don't know or don't care about the legitimate privacy and security issues WOMEN face when random males are allowed unchallenged access into women's bathrooms and changing rooms.
Prudishness has absolutely nothing to do with it.
No enforceable definition of a "real transgender person of goodwill", as opposed to a "phony transgender up to no good", is possible. So there's no way to allow one access and not the other.
Therefore, free bathroom and change room access for transgender "women" would allow ANY man who claims to "feel like he's a woman" to walk into places where women are partly or entirely unclothed. And women would have no legal right to ask him to leave. Even if he looks 100% male and is making them feel scared or uncomfortable by his behaviour.
That is the problem!
11
@Sue
I am a woman and I have absolutely no problem with transgender people or even ordinary men sharing public facilities with me. I have done it in Europe and Asia and felt perfectly comfortable. I have no issue with viewing male genitali (it's not like I haven't seen it all before) and if a man catches a glimpse of me in a shower, good for him. If you are concerned about sexual predators, better examine your living arrangements: most women are attacked by their intimate partners or somebody they know. Check the statistics; it's a fact. So yes, it is about prudishness.
I am a woman and I have absolutely no problem with transgender people or even ordinary men sharing public facilities with me. I have done it in Europe and Asia and felt perfectly comfortable. I have no issue with viewing male genitali (it's not like I haven't seen it all before) and if a man catches a glimpse of me in a shower, good for him. If you are concerned about sexual predators, better examine your living arrangements: most women are attacked by their intimate partners or somebody they know. Check the statistics; it's a fact. So yes, it is about prudishness.
1
Under the North Carolina law one must use the bathroom that corresponds with the sex on one’s birth certificate. Therefore, you would have a transgender person who is female by birth but identifies as male, who dresses and otherwise appears male, being compelled to use the women’s bathroom. Absent this law, this person would use the men’s bathroom and not cause alarm to anyone. With the law, a person who appears to be a man is forced to walk into the women's bathroom. As I see it, the law is causing problems and not preventing them.
Meanwhile, you can be sure that before anyone ever dreamt up this anti-trans legislation that trans people were already using your bathrooms and locker rooms. Did this provoke widespread outrage previously? I don’t recall hearing anything in the news…
Meanwhile, you can be sure that before anyone ever dreamt up this anti-trans legislation that trans people were already using your bathrooms and locker rooms. Did this provoke widespread outrage previously? I don’t recall hearing anything in the news…
1
Can anyone name the mayor of another city that purposely set out to ruin the city she is the mayor of by demanding private businesses admit anyone to any bathroom they wish to go to?
Jennifer Roberts, a democrat, chose to pass this bill, not to help our city or transgendered citizens, but to help her fellow democrat, Roy Cooper's race for governor.
Her hypocrisy is a travesty.
j
Jennifer Roberts, a democrat, chose to pass this bill, not to help our city or transgendered citizens, but to help her fellow democrat, Roy Cooper's race for governor.
Her hypocrisy is a travesty.
j
13
@ivanhead2, it's as m amazing how not much is said about what brought about HB2. Commenters are quick to say that there was indeed no problem and I agree we have all shared a bathroom with transgenders so then what possess Charlotte's mayor to make a non issue an issue-thereby forcing McCrory to act. Prior to her signing her bill she was warned against doing that. Why wasn't that news when she signed a law no one asked for? Double standard indeed. Everyone got along Charlotte so thanks for starting trouble by pandering way way to the left. Well if the DOJ gets its way, it will only be fair if areas are not explicitly labeled men or women but coed/ free for all. Otherwise what's the point of a label if it is open to interpretation.
5
What's the point of a label if its only use is to discriminate. It would be better to leave sex off of birth certificates and resumes.
1
"purposely set out to ruin the city"?
that is a tremendous leap in logic, with no safety net at all. you are fortunate that baseless assertions are protected by the constitution, and that ignorance is not physically painful.
that is a tremendous leap in logic, with no safety net at all. you are fortunate that baseless assertions are protected by the constitution, and that ignorance is not physically painful.
1
How ironic that the word "sex" has now become a rallying call for the Left, when the word was so recently vilified as the language of oppression (to be replaced by "gender"). Equally ironic that transgender people often reject the "gender binary", when the whole point of "gender" (and in linguistics there are three genders, not two) was to supplant the "sex binary." It seems that "sex" isn't so bad after all (but then some of us could have told you that)
21
Yes, how ironic that even transgender citizens want civil rights!
33
Ironically, John, it seems like transphobic folks can't actually make their minds up about whether trans people are rejecting the gender binary or reinforcing it. It's a shame that practically all of their reasoning is based on a naive and often incredibly patchy understanding of trans people, given the almost complete ignorance about trans men and genderqueer folks from most regressives. Trans women have always worn the brunt of any anti-trans backlash. There's nothing wrong with sex as a form of classification, it's the fact that it's used in a discriminatory manner by people with discriminatory agendas that is a concern. I think ultimately the point boils down to the fact that you can't legislate that a minority group are committing a criminal offense for using public amenities for the purpose they were intended. It's that simple, really. Trans people need to use the restroom just like everybody else - you can't criminalize the act of using a restroom, and you certainly can't do it because you want to rile up your voter base or drive trans people out of society or to reinforce any other self-serving, discriminatory intention you may have as a legislator.
36
"Trans people need to use the restroom just like everybody else - you can't criminalize the act of using a restroom,"
I'm sick of the highly dramatic claim that transgender people are literally barred from any place to relieve themselves unless they can use the bathroom of their preferred gender.
It's not as if they have literally no choice but to go behind a bush. There is the handicapped bathroom and ... (gasp)... the bathroom of their natal gender.
If transgender women claim it is too dangerous for them to use the public men's room, then let them explain to us why it is safe for women to have any old random males hanging out in the public women's room.
I'm sick of the highly dramatic claim that transgender people are literally barred from any place to relieve themselves unless they can use the bathroom of their preferred gender.
It's not as if they have literally no choice but to go behind a bush. There is the handicapped bathroom and ... (gasp)... the bathroom of their natal gender.
If transgender women claim it is too dangerous for them to use the public men's room, then let them explain to us why it is safe for women to have any old random males hanging out in the public women's room.
10
As with the 1960's racists, the GOP is urging them to vote to "protect our women and children." They need voters to ignore Trump's lack of qualifications, serial bankruptcies, offshoring jobs and failed businesses; to forget the importance of protecting workers, saving Social Security and Medicare, to forget the need for well-paid Middle Class jobs, strengthening unions, good public schools, affordable college, fair taxation of the 1%, dealing with climate change, saving our national parks and lands.
The GOP needs to demonize one more minority for the base to hate, to make them forget the things that really matter.