Transgender

Transgender Bathroom Panic May Help Decide Who Will Be North Carolina’s Governor

Attorney general challenging for the job will not defend new law.

|

Pat McCrory
Governor's office

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper is refusing to defend against a lawsuit challenging North Carolina's controversial new law that overrules Charlotte's LGBT anti-discrimination protections and requires transgender individuals to use the bathrooms of their birth sex in schools and government buildings.

This matters politically because Cooper, a Democrat, is running to unseat North Carolina's governor, Pat McCrory, who is vocally defending it and complaining that news coverage of the law's impact is inaccurate.

To be clear, it's absolutely wrong for McCrory to be claiming that it doesn't affect existing civil rights ordinances in cities within North Carolina. That's absolutely what it does by blocking the ability of cities or counties to expand antidiscrimination ordinances to categories not covered by state law. Whether or not those ordinances are appropriate or needed is another matter entirely, but the legislation literally says state discrimination laws (and the limits on them) preempt municipal laws. (I wrote more about the law here. Nick Gillespie provides some additional analysis here.)

As with Houston, the passage of the law was a backlash against Charlotte's attempt to require accommodation of transgender folks to choose their bathrooms. McCrory is correct when he complains that the state law has been represented as interfering in what choices private businesses make. It does not prohibit businesses from either having their own policies against LGBT discrimination or from private businesses accommodating transgender customers in whichever bathroom.

But it does require schools and government facilities to police their bathrooms and require transgender people to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of the sex listed on their birth certificate. So in that sense, the law standardizes a refusal by the government to respect the identity of the citizens that it is supposed to represent.

What Cooper's stand does is turn transgender bathroom panic into a fall election issue to a degree even higher than what we saw in Houston. People's opinions or fears about scheming men plotting to get free legal access to little girls without repercussion—regardless of how realistic such a fear is (it's completely unrealistic)—may help determine whether McCrory will keep control over the executive branch. McCrory is the first Republican governor of North Carolina in 20 years.  

It's a flashback to the days when opposition to laws that favored gay and lesbian folks were used to rally conservatives, back when George W. Bush was president. But since then the dynamics have changed, and the Democratic Party has fully embraced every position pushed forward by the LGBT political activist establishment and is attempting to use these issues to get out the vote. While the Democratic Party has been "friendlier" on gay issues historically, it's only recently that they have started to use those issues as a wedge issue on their side rather than trying to find some sort of accommodation that staves off conflict. Both President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were famously opposed to same-sex marriage recognition less than a decade ago. But now it's full steam ahead, attempting to use federal law to codify protections against discrimination for gays, lesbians, and transgender people.

Given the extremely populist and unpredictable direction this election cycle has taken, it's difficult to say whether this transgender bathroom panic will help McCrory win a second term or actually hurt him in a Southern state that has a fairly Democratic background. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

111 responses to “Transgender Bathroom Panic May Help Decide Who Will Be North Carolina’s Governor

  1. Given the extremely populist and unpredictable direction this election cycle has taken, it’s difficult to say whether this transgender bathroom panic will help McCrory win a second term or actually hurt him in a Southern state that actually has a fairly Democratic background.

    Either way, it’s pretty clear we as a civilization are doomed and I for one say it’s about damned time.

    1. I don’t care about the transgender provisions in this law much, and it’s hardly the end of civilization.

      I do care about the other, pro-business provisions of this law, which are also pro-freedom of contract and pro-freedom of association. Namely, its provisions preempting meddlesome local “civil-rights” ordinances imposed by cities and counties that make it easier for trial lawyers to sue private employers, and undermine merit-based hiring, as I discuss at this link: https://goo.gl/JxkksB

      The North Carolina law also blocks costly, job-killing local minimum-wage ordinances.

      By contrast, the bathroom provisions seem to be an example of the state overreacting to local ordinances that themselves unduly meddle in bathroom policies of private entities (I say overreacting because the state doesn’t just preempt the ordinances, but adopts a one-size fits-all policy for state government facilities when more flexibility might be useful).

      But preempting local civil-rights ordinances is good. Left-leaning cities often meddle in hiring decisions by banning employers from sensibly discriminating based on characteristics that are properly considered in hiring, and which, unlike sexual orientation, reflect the content of the applicant’s character. For example, cities like Boston and Washington, D.C., forbid considering an applicant’s history of criminal convictions.

      1. I do care about the other, pro-business provisions of this law, which are also pro-freedom of contract and pro-freedom of association. Namely, its provisions preempting meddlesome local “civil-rights” ordinances imposed by cities and counties that make it easier for trial lawyers to sue private employers, and undermine merit-based hiring[.]

        Absolutely this.

      2. Funny that, how Progressive cities can always choose which laws to enforce or not enforce, but Conservative cities cannot.

  2. The people trying to segregate the bathrooms should troll everyone with SJW language, claim they’re protecting us from Problematic Gender Appropriation. You know, for the lulz.

    1. There is a branch of feminism that does actually believe this.

      1. I learned that from Nikki. I believe they’re called TERFs. Had to google them and everything. Something like Trans something Refuting Feminists. They must be a barrel of monkeys to hang out with.

        1. Trans-exclusionary radical feminism.

        2. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. (I hear calling one a TERF now is a slut, so they’re still playing the game)

      2. Most feminists I’ve encountered should opposed transgendered on ideological grounds. A group of people who very often play up every ‘bad’/socially constructed stereotype about your sex in order to reaffirm their own identity? If most of the feminists I’ve encountered followed their arguments to their logical conclusions instead of engaging in double think, they wouldn’t be so gung-ho on this issue.

        1. If feminists followed their arguments to their logical conclusion, they would recognize the flaws in their ideology and stop being feminists.

          1. +1 A woman should know her place.

    2. This does speak to a contradiction.

      A white guy wearing dreadlocks gets beaten up by people for appropriating culture, but a white guy saying he’s really a woman (who arguably knows less about being a woman than the first guy knows about hairdoos ) MUST be believed and appreciated…

      1. I think the prevailing argument is that one is completely genetic and the other is just kookiness.

        1. Which is which?

          1. I was hoping someone else would tell me!

  3. I eagerly await our unitard-wearing future where gender has been eliminated, we reproduce through collective gene-swapping, and everyone pisses sitting down.

      1. I sitzpinkle at home because clean. It helps to live alone where I can contain the shame and embarrassment. Of course in public I stand, like a real man.

        1. I sitzpinkle at home because clean, In public I stand, like a real man.

          Can i get a proofread here for proper-german?

          “”Ich sitzpinkle zu Hause, weil sauber,
          in der ?ffentlichkeit stehe ich, wie ein richtiger Mann””

          …and once that’s sorted, can someone suggest a good tune for this to be converted to a drinking song called, “Where and how I tinkle

          1. I don’t know how to convey the “because ____” meme but the rest is pretty accurate. The first clause should however read “Zu Hause sitzpinkle ich”.

            1. Good. Now can you make it *rhyme* in German?

  4. “Transgender Bathroom Panic”

    I read these words and laugh every time.

    1. I’d listen to a band with that name.

      1. Metal? Hip Hop? Reggae? Big Band?

        1. Boy Band is most appropriate.

        2. Post-punk revival, most likely

      2. Isn’t that already the title of an Of Montreal album?

    2. Transgender Bathroom Picnic?

      The first candidate that proposes separate bathrooms for white transgenders and black transgenders probably loses.

  5. But it does require schools and government facilities to police their bathrooms and require transgender people to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of the sex listed on their birth certificate. So in that sense, the law standardizes a refusal by the government to respect the identity of the citizens that it is supposed to represent.

    Serious question, will the cops who are stationed outside of bathrooms checking birth certificates in government buildings be the same one who are stationed in retailers in December to make sure cashiers wish shoppers a Merry Christmas?

    1. I’m looking forward to videos of bathroom police shootings.

      1. These masturbation euphemisms are getting really obscure.

    2. Alright, let’s flip this around. If people are now allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds with their self-identified gender, are we going to have cops stationed outside of bathrooms to make sure people allow them in? It works both ways, you know.

  6. So the Reason writer’s continue to throw temper tantrums in their biased characterizations of people’s motivations as well as at best having no judgement on a public official refusing to do his job.

    1. Yeah, it’s Reason throwing a temper tantrum and not the pants-shitters who want school bathroom police inspecting children’s genitals.

      1. The Only pants shutting I am swing here is from Shackford and Gillespie who have defined discrimination down so far as to make it meaningless.

        1. I hate my phone’s autocorrect.

      2. I think the people throwing tantrums are the men who are demanding to use women’s bathrooms and showers.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..purse.html

    2. We’ll know Reason is truly beyond hope when we get the article ‘Why he/she must be replaced by xe!’

  7. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper is refusing to defend against a lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s controversial new law that overrules Charlotte’s LGBT anti-discrimination protections…

    Like a guy with a vajj, I’m completely confused.

    1. Ditto, Fist.

      Let’s see if we can figure out whether Cooper is for or against (for the sake of discussion) “men using women’s restrooms.

      refusing: –
      defend: +
      against: –
      challenging: –
      overrules: +
      anti-: –
      discrimination: +

      So, it’s ? against ? Wait, what was the original position?

  8. But it does require schools and government facilities to police their bathrooms and require transgender people to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of the sex listed on their birth certificate. So in that sense, the law standardizes a refusal by the government to respect the identity of the citizens that it is supposed to represent.

    No, it doesn’t Scott. It says people enter bathrooms based on genitalia. And more than that, it doesn’t prevent public facilities such as schools from providing students the place to change.

    And how far is the government supposed to go in respecting ‘identity?’ Since when is that a legitimate function or role of government? If I come out tomorrow and say I’m black to get a federal job, does the government have to respect that?

    1. Yes. The government must respect whatever identity a citizens thinks they are. Otherkin, for example. If you think you are a dog, or a marmot, the government must respect that. It’s in the living, breathing, constitution.

      1. commerce clause, right?

    2. To explain the above better, the law in question still allows and tells public facilities/schools to accommodate the transgendered. It just doesn’t allow them into areas based male/female.

      And talk about respecting identity is ridiculous. You are forcing everyone else to accommodate and recognize the identity. It’s not the government respecting anything. It’s the government telling everyone else who wants to use those facilities they have to accept it. And many don’t. Many with vaginas don’t want a man with a penis in the changing room regardless of their identity.

      I’d argue a lot of people shit their pants on this issue and it wouldn’t cause legitimate safety issues that don’t already exist. But that has nothing to do with the arguments being put forth by Reason. There is nothing about this law to oppose on libertarian/NAP grounds.

      1. There is nothing about this law to oppose on libertarian/NAP grounds.

        If they are going to force ably remove transgenders for using the “wrong” bathroom there certainly is.

        1. The cam forcibly remove anyone with the opposite genitalia from what the facility is supposed to serve. I do not understand how that is wrong, especially if the intended users have a complaint.

        2. The libertarian problem here is that the LGBT crowd is forcing association with people onto people who do not wish to associate with them.

          1. The most obvious and basic violation of the NAP present was in the Charlotte law. By far. Reason’s take here is stupid.

        3. If they are going to force ably remove transgenders for using the “wrong” bathroom there certainly is.

          They forcibly remove cis-genders from pretty much any part of the school they desire now. They don’t even need a reason more descriptive or explicit than loitering. Recently, saying you’ve been bullied or harassed has been a golden ticket for ‘oppressed people’ to evict others from whatever school space they desire regardless of degree or nature of harassment. These kids don’t magically get their HS diplomas and become special snowflakes overnight. They’re conditioned to expect safe spaces well before they set foot on college campuses.

      2. Many with vaginas don’t want a man with a penis in the changing room regardless of their identity.

        and yet, you may be amazed at how many women oppose what the Governor and General Assembly passed.

    3. Dammit.

    4. All the government has to do its not get involved. Is that so fucking difficult?

      It says people enter bathrooms based on genitalia.

      How exactly is that going to be enforced?

      1. How was The Charlotte ordnance the government not getting involved?

      2. Clearly it’s time to expand the mandate of the TSA.

      3. How exactly is that going to be enforced?

        Hint – it won’t be. And I have no fucking problem with that.

        If they are going to force ably remove transgenders for using the “wrong” bathroom there certainly is.

        It’s only wrong if you ignore all aspects of objective reality and reject the notion of segregated bathrooms in public facilities in the first place.

        You are trying to legislate something that is personal and cultural which can people can point to an obvious (if exaggerated and somewhat irrational) safety concern.

        1. Oh it will be enforced, but selectively and capriciously depending on the mood of the authorities and the wherewithal of the ‘perpetrator’ to defend him or herself in court. But sure, why not add another excuse for cops and prosecutors to hassle people and feed them into the legal system? What’s the worst that could happen?

          1. how would it be enforced? Most clear scenario I can see is a woman noticing what looks like a man dressed as a woman in the ladies room and saying something. I doubt many men would say squat about a woman in the men’s room but who knows.

            That suggesting “if you have dick, use the men’s room” is seen as controversial is a problem unto itself.

          2. But sure, why not add another excuse for cops and prosecutors to hassle people and feed them into the legal system? What’s the worst that could happen?

            One might just as easily argue that an excuse to hassle people and feed them into the legal system has already been established and, even though it can be capriciously invoked and enforced, that it doesn’t count because it’s not explicitly codified into law.

            Moreover, explicit codifying ‘respect for gender identity’ into law creates a greater propensity for a situation where misunderstandings perpetrated in good faith would feed more people into the legal system. Especially when idiots attempt to falsely link ‘respect for gender identity’ with antiquated public accommodation laws that are ever-expanding and arguably unconstitutional to begin with.

        2. It’s a law on the books. It can technically be enforced and some rare scenario may pop up where it will be. In reality, a lot of people don’t care enough to go looking for a cop to complain to because a transgendered man used a public bathroom. That’s all assuming that they even notice it. It may act as a deterrent against transgendered from even bothering. Or it could spur on people to say screw the law. Most likely, everything needed to enforce this will be so rare that it really won’t ever be enforced.

          In reality, it’s very unlikely many if any individuals will be caught up in this. By comparison, the Charlotte and local laws definitely would have created civil issues impacting private establishments and a far larger group of people.

          Inaction at the state level leads to far more and far more severe violations of the NAP even if you want to pretend genitalia based bathrooms count as a violation of any kind.

          1. Well I guess it’s okay as long as it’s probably going to be pretty rare for the state to grind transgendered people through the courts and jails. I mean when have laws targeting disfavored minorities ever actually been enforced, right? Just think of what will happen without the law, thousands of people, maybe millions, will be forced to be slightly uncomfortable for a few minutes!

          2. No, Hugh. A shit ton of people will have to accommodate transgendered individuals. To include coughing up money and being subject to civil liability. That’s the alternative actually on the table.

            I could just as easily say that there will be instances of males who abuse accommodation laws for their sexual kinks. It’s not unheard of for a few freaks to record in bathrooms already.

            What’s more, you fail to recognize that the state law does nothing but maintain the awful status quo because transgendered individuals never actually had the ability to use the bathroom of their choosing based on their identity.

            1. Accommodate them how exactly? By allowing them to use existing public restroom facilities? How does that cost anyone money?

            2. You seem entirely focused on the state law to the exclusion of the local ordinance in Charlotte that mirrors those passed elsewhere which created a slew of new restrictions on private businesses beyond just the use of bathrooms. So, it created new regulations for housing and employers that opened them up to new and often frivolous complaints.

              You also ignore that the transgendered community doesn’t have such simple demand on this matter. There are many who would rather see all gender distinctions in restrooms done away with. And some who would demand gender neutral facilities added. So right now a number of schools aren’t just repurposing or lifting restrictions, but building new facilities that are gender neutral. Third sets. This was done on my campus, to start, with some demanding more of them. It’s not alone:
              http://www.nola.com/news/baton…..provi.html

      4. I’m assuming it’s enforced the same way it always has been. Men were never allowed in women’s bathrooms and vice versa. This appears to be the argument that the status who will lead us to Nazi Germany.

        1. Status quo

  9. Until a candidate has an affair in a transgender bathroom with an underage transgender I’m not going to follow this issue.

  10. So fucking tired of this shit.

    1. Hey, do you want to be distracted from issues that matter with trivial bullshit or not? Sheesh.

    2. I used to be as well, but it’s now turned into a nonstop laugh fest just reading the arguments put forth here.

  11. My “anti-discrimination” law.

    No signs on the bathroom doors, at all. Ya takes yer chances, or waits ’til yer home.

    1. I waited ’til i got home BEFORE it was cool!

  12. “Given the extremely populist and unpredictable direction this election cycle has taken, it’s difficult to say whether this transgender bathroom panic will help McCrory win a second term or actually hurt him in a Southern state that actually has a fairly Democratic background.”

    It may help bring in outside money and attention but I don’t think black democrats care much about the transfolk.

    1. True, but the line will be “the Republicans are evil racists and everything they do is evil, so this bathroom thing is probably racist, too.”

      1. “True, but the line will be “the Republicans are evil racists and everything they do is evil, so this bathroom thing is probably racist, too.””

        Yes. I might be giving black democrats too much credit here, but “evil, racist Republicans” is always the line, so I still don’t see them garnering much enthusiasm over this.

  13. So in that sense, the law standardizes a refusal by the government to respect the identity of the citizens that it is supposed to represent.

    This clause alone is almost a handful of stolen bases;

    The government is there to defend my property rights. My identity among my peers isn’t explicitly my property or theirs.

    This democratic republic represents the majority, of which the T community is not. Even invoking equality and defense against the tyranny of the majority, it’s hard to de facto place the T minority’s wishes above the ‘Use the right bathroom’ minority’s wishes.

    Their identity is fluid and/or Transitioning/ed, the minority itself is denoted by it’s inablity/refusal to be socially identified. Expecting the government to identify it and represent it is oxymoronic.

    The law routinely standardizes refusals to respect identity and, further, you’re assuming some manner of active policing when none, or no greater policing, is explicitly implied. If we were talking about bullies hanging out in the restroom and harassing people the policing becomes necessary to protect respect identity.

  14. Fuck a person that needs to broadcast their gender identification via the terlet. The natural de-selection of humans appears to be afoot.

  15. Well, the Frankfurt School has won. They’ve successfully sabotaged Western civilization.

    People are talking about “checking birth certificates,” but the real problem is that there is now no objective test or definition of “trans.” Anyone can proclaim themselves any gender at any time. Meaning any pervy guy can now go into any women’s room and just claim he “identifies as a woman.” Many women, and many men with daughters, are not pleased with this, and I understand their concern.

    1. Many women and men with daughters were probably not pleased when anyone could claim to be white and use the bathrooms that were not assigned to them.

      1. And I bet the government wouldn’t be pleased when white people claim to be black in order to take advantage of affirmative action and minority set-asides. But it shouldn’t matter, because if they “identify” as black, the government must respect that.

      2. Sex and race are not equivalent distinctions.

        1. How are they different?

          1. Men are generally physically stronger and bigger than women and then you have the complications of sexual attraction.

            If you cannot understand why biological women might have valid reasons to desire privacy from biological males in certain social situations then I do not think you are much capable of empathy.

        2. Well, one is a different shade of skin color based on melanin levels. The other involves differences in genitalia and physical attributes.

          So, Hugh, do you oppose gendered-segregated bathrooms entirely? Should we have a unisex or simply individual bathrooms?

          1. “Well, one is a different shade of skin color based on melanin levels. The other involves differences in genitalia and physical attributes.”

            I think you’re downplaying race a tad.

          2. No, not really. Not unless you confuse it with ethnicity and culture, and ignore that there is a far greater range of ‘races’ than commonly recognized. All blacks aren’t the same, and genetically, a black person can have more in common with a white European than another African.

            But it doesn’t matter. The second Hugh or anyone else acknowledges they are ok with the idea of bathrooms and changing rooms being segregated on biological gender in anyway, they’ve really lost the argument. At the very least they have to admit a difference between it and race.

            1. “No, not really. Not unless you confuse it with ethnicity and culture, and ignore that there is a far greater range of ‘races’ than commonly recognized. All blacks aren’t the same, and genetically, a black person can have more in common with a white European than another African.”

              Ethnicity is frequently used as a synonym for (or a subset of) race, so this is already rather circular. But it’s well established that physical attributes such as bone structure (and possibly even fingerprints) are racial.

              “But it doesn’t matter.”

              Of course.

              1. Most of those biological differences or markers you would point to are geographic in nature and not purely or even mostly racial. And there remains as much genetic diversity within broadly defined races as outside of them.

                Regardless, if you can tell me how femur length impacts whether they can or should use the bathroom together, I’m game to listen. I probably will still see it as irrelevant.

                1. I defer to Jimmy the Greek in matters of racial attributes of blacks. /sarc

                2. I don’t want to get bogged into a discussion of loci and alleles so I’ll just say that really has no bearing on the concept of race at all (Richard Lewontin’s criticism is the most famous but see Witherspoon’s 2007 paper). However, there looks to be an increasing amount of evidence that the more genetic markers (and combinations) they check the better they can identify one’s race (and ethnicity)

                  (I’m happy to provide some links if you’d like)

                  Of course, this is all a side issue to the more important point you’ve made…

                  “Regardless, if you can tell me how femur length impacts whether they can or should use the bathroom together, I’m game to listen. I probably will still see it as irrelevant.”

                  I don’t even like sharing a bathroom with my family so I’m probably not the one to ask. I’d leave it up to the owners first and if we must have government restrooms I’d leave it up to the county/parish.

          3. …and locker rooms and women only sports.

            1. Title Vagine?

          4. Gender-segregated bathrooms are a silly holdover of Victorian sexual mores. Building owners should be able to build and designate bathrooms however they like, including by gender, race, age, or whatever. But requiring them by law to segregate facilities by gender is retarded.

            1. Hugh, that already is the law whether you like it or not. There’s these things – they are called building codes – and they are already enforced in public and private facilities.

              In reality, transgendered folk using public bathrooms before was…*gasp*…already illegal. It’s a right they never technically had. Especially since it was only relatively recently that they weren’t labelled as mentally ill.

              But at least you are consistent in that you don’t give a shit about gender segregated. Your argument is internally consistent.

            2. the NC law says nothing about how private owners set up their bathroom facilities. Most use male/female because it’s the easiest way. Other places have single-use facilities due largely to space limitations.

            3. Gender-segregated bathrooms are a silly holdover of Victorian sexual mores.

              Well, implemented through the progressive lenses of building codes, women’s rights, and (women’s) right to privacy. Victorian-era public restrooms were decidedly more unisex for very different reasons than todays unisex restrooms would be/are unisex.

              So, your solution to the old idiotic cultural notions that were wrongly enshrined into law as part of progressive movements is to enshrine newer and more idiotic progressive cultural norms into law. Brilliant Hugh.

      3. It’s about time for this argument to be treated as a Godwin.

      4. This is an exercise in social signalling. It’s irrational to be outraged over this while at the same time admitting it can’t and won’t be enforced. Compared to the alternative – a series of accommodation laws the only argue for is that they are more ‘local’ is stupid.

        This law creates no extra burden on the taxpayer or private establishments. In practice, it won’t change anything, but will prevent stupidity. And the transgendered can still be accommodated under the law in a humane manner.

  16. Who wants to invest in my chamber pot start up?

    1. I’m in, even if it cuts into my stillsuit business, because i believe in diversification.

      1. It just involves repurposing Utz pretzel barrels.

        1. Dammit, i’ve been doing that for years. Hold up, i gotta go fire my patent attorney.

    2. How does that work? Treat you to Taco Bell?

  17. As the article notes, the law is about far more than just TBP (enough to possibly make most of the law unconstitutional by analogy to Obergefell)

    The politics are hard to estimate; it won’t help the Democrats much with African American turnout, nor does it really seem like a big issue for Trumpsexuals.

  18. I was eating lunch in the work cafeteria yesterday and this story came on the news. I had no idea what they were talking about until now. Apparently New York has banned “nonessential publicly funded travel to North Carolina” in response to this stuff.

    http://www.greensboro.com/news…..f455a.html

    It does beg the question -. Why would NY pay for any non-essential travel anywhere? I think this was just a chance for Cuomo to get his retard face on the news.

    1. Why would NY pay for any non-essential travel anywhere?

      Because FYTW. Why would the King have to explain anything about using your money to move the King’s Men about?

    2. I think this was just a chance for Cuomo to get his retard face on the news.

      UHH YOU THINK??

      Sure, yes, its possible that the NY State Parks Dept was going to attend a voluntary conference on Beach Erosion down in Wilmington NC…. but the idea that there’s any significant state-funded travel to/from NC & NY which required the Governor’s intervention to stop is obviously just a completely symbolic gesture which should insult people’s intelligence if they weren’t already shitting-themselves-retarded

  19. Why does the title use an inflammatory perjorative like “panic”? Aren’t the ones who are “panicking”, the ones who are in a hurry to upend hundreds of years of social norms, and allow anyone to use any restroom?

    Besides, restrooms were never intended to be gender identification stations. They are extremely utilitarian rooms designed for the elimination of waste. It seems common sense that you would require people to use the restroom that actually corresponds to their personal plumbing, not to what they “feel” like. At least that system has worked for centuries. If you have a better way, go ahead and suggest it. But I think the burden of proof is on those who want to change that system.

  20. Tell you what: If you are a man in a public restroom in North Carolina, and a drag queen or transgendered woman walks up to the urinal next to you to take a leak, you had better keep your mouth shut, because that’s what the ever-so-sanctimonious lawmakers in North Carolina have said they have no choice but to do. Sharing your men’s restroom with people who are biologically men but have the souls of women? You asked for it.

    Likewise, if you are a woman in a public restroom, and someone who looks like a muscular young man in t-shirt and ball cap enters one of the vacant stalls to take a dump, you should accept it quietly and tend to your business, because people who are biologically female but identify as men have no choice in the matter.

  21. Transgender Bathroom Panic

    Why are the Reason writers panicked about bathrooms? It’s such a trivial issue and Reason is the only place I see that phrase.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.