With all the notoriety around Target’s new bathroom policy and North Carolina’s HB-2 which targeted a Charlotte “anti-discrimination” ordinance, the rhetoric has become laughable. To many what was once a no-brainer situation- which bathroom to use when not at home- has become a civil rights argument now. Seriously? Bathrooms?
Granted, at one time this was an issue with respect to black versus white bathrooms and a host of other public accomodations like water fountains, seating on a bus and restaurants. We have all seen the pictures. However, this is a whole separate issue from the one in North Carolina. While the Left is trying to portray this law as turning back the clock on civil rights and legislative overkill, it is actually the Charlotte ordinance that was legislative overkill. And how can one “turn back the clock” if the clock was never advanced over something as commonsense as a male using the men’s room and a female using the ladies room?
A simple fact exists with regards to bathrooms for the overwhelming majority of Americans (including transgender people) and that is an expectation of privacy. It is the very reason one does not place surveillance cameras in bathrooms even though they are potentially high-crime areas. In short, when one enters the ladies room, one has a reasonable expectation that there will be…surprise… actual women in that bathroom facility.
The law does specifically state that with respect to schools, transgender students be afforded private, single occupancy facilities. If anything, the state is going out of its way by burdening schools with this requirement with respect to transgender students. Of course, the Left obfuscates the issue and claims it is a form of state-sanctioned stigma against the transgender student. If so, then there is stigma against the handicapped since there are requirements for handicapped facilities. Is every ramp on a sidewalk at the corner a stigma of the handicapped? Of course it isn’t and neither are these requirements in HB-2.
While it may be true, as the Left contends, that there are no instances of transgender people raping, molesting, or in any other way causing harm in bathrooms, locker rooms or other facilities, great for them. Fantastic, in fact! But that argument misses the two important points of the law. The first point is the expectation of privacy in bathrooms/locker rooms.
The second is that the Left has their heads in the sand if they believe that nefarious non-transgender characters will not take advantage of the ordinance. Seattle has a similar ordinance and one man- NOT transgender- was caught in the ladies room “testing the boundaries” of the law. It only takes one example of a child being molested or a woman being raped in a ladies room by a non-transgender male taking advantage of the local laws to change the entire discussion. It is that eventuality that North Carolina was trying to avoid. Are we to stand by and let that eventuality happen? Although it may happen absent these laws, why create the environment which makes it easier for the non-transgender rapist/pervert?
The Charlotte ordinance may have been “well-meaning,” but also short-sighted and passed through rose colored glasses. The fact is there are nefarious people (again, NOT TRANSGENDER) who would take advantage of the best of a city’s intentions.
The Left claims that the bill takes away a person’s right. Since when did there exist a right for anyone to use any bathroom of their choosing? Further, the Left ignores the rights of the overwhelming majority of people who have that right to an expectation of privacy in bathrooms. They also claim that it affects other areas not related to bathrooms. Again, this is typical slippery slope Leftist scare-mongering. There are numerous references within the bill to bathrooms/locker rooms- areas traditionally and for good reason that differentiated based on biological sex- specifically.
While washed up performers like Bruce Springsteen and the banjo sounds of Mumford and Sons may boycott North Carolina, they are free to do so. In my honest opinion, the loss is for these performers, not the state. These are just examples of performers trying to stay relevant by flexing their Leftist credentials. While the NBA and the NCAA have expressed “concern,” chances are finances and the reality of the law will win the day in the end.
And as far as the “civil cause of action” clause in the bill goes, that simply precludes anyone who claims to be transgender from filing a civil suit in a court of law.
NO- this law is not discriminatory and to the effect that it is, it is discriminatory against the man or woman who had as long as there has been public bathroom accomodations an expectation of privacy in such places.