Trans

Controversial North Carolina Bathroom Law Could Change, but May Make Life More Difficult For Transgender People

Facing pressure from the NBA, the bill would create sex reassignment certificates.

|

Michal Jarmoluk / Pixabay

After months of backlash from numerous groups, leaders in the North Carolina General Assembly are preparing to introduce legislation to change certain provisions of the state's controversial bathroom law.

If you recall, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill in March requiring individuals to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender listed on their birth certificate. In addition, the bill also prevented cities from passing any anti-discrimination protections that would apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people as well as other labor regulations.

That law—the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, commonly known as House Bill 2—was a response to an ordinance passed in Charlotte, which would have allowed transgender people to use the bathroom or locker room for the gender they identify with and prohibited discrimination for housing and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The statewide law was passed during a one-day special session, and was signed by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory after the session concluded.

Reaction to House Bill 2 has been heated. Businesses were quick to criticize McCrory and the General Assembly, and the law has been the subject of multiple lawsuits, including one from the United States Department of Justice.

However, conservatives have stood by House Bill 2, saying it will protect women and children from being sexually assaulted (though this claim lacks compelling support).

Three months after the law went on the books, leadership in the state's House of Representatives has drafted legislation to modify it. According to television station WBTV, the draft comes as a result of conversations between political leaders and officials from the National Basketball Association (NBA). Charlotte is currently set to host the 2017 NBA All-Star Game, but the event's future has come into question since House Bill 2 passed.

So is the General Assembly planning on making it easier for transgender people to use their preferred bathroom? Far from it. Based on the draft of the bill, it won't just continue to be a hassle for these individuals to choose their bathroom—the change may make their lives more difficult.

If this draft were to become law, it would permit the government to create an official document recognizing someone's gender reassignment. In order to receive this certificate, a trans person would have to submit an application as well as a statement from a doctor who "has examined the individual and can certify that the person has undergone sex reassignment surgery."

As Reason's Scott Shackford noted when House Bill 2 was passed, the government should treat gay and transgender people the same way they treat straight people. Instead, North Carolina's General Assembly is putting up a major hurdle to a minority group's self-determination. Despite the backlash to House Bill 2, legislators are only slightly loosening the restrictions they've placed on people who, like everyone, have to use the bathroom.

NEXT: Is the ACLU's Lawsuit Against Bad Anti-Hacking Law Ingenious or Terrifying?

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.

  1. “As Reason’s Scott Shackford noted when House Bill 2 was passed, the government should treat gay and transgender people the same way they treat straight people. Instead, North Carolina’s General Assembly is putting up a major hurdle to a minority group’s self-determination. Despite the backlash to House Bill 2, legislators are only slightly loosening the restrictions they’ve placed on people who, like everyone, have to use the bathroom.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I think they’re still allowed to use the bathroom?

    Also, does it have anything at all to do with gay people?

    1. Yeah “allowed” seems like a one-sided way to describe rights to the private property of others.

    2. …the government should treat gay and transgender people the same way they treat straight people.

      I think they do. The state is ensuring that gay and transgender people, as well as straight people, will not have their privacy violated in government owned bathrooms and locker rooms by having to share them with people with different external sex characteristics.

      I’d rather legislatures not have to deal with this, but they aren’t the ones with the bad manners who started it.

      And of course private owners should be and are free to let anyone they want use whatever bathroom the owner wants them to.

      1. Which do you think will make people feel like their privacy is “violated” more: Laverne Cox in the men’s room, or Laverne Cox in the women’s room?

        Buck Angel in the men’s room, or Buck Angel in the women’s room?

        1. How silly of me. Of course rules should be made for 99% of the people based on an unrepresentative 0.0001% of the people being used to represent 0.3% of the people.

        2. Laverne:Women’s.
          Buck:Women’s.

  2. I for one will not be satisfied until 0.03% of the population gets their own bathrooms, a seat on the Supreme Court, and their own Special Operations Unit.

  3. Holy fuck, this is getting derpier. How about use the men’s room if you got men’s parts, women’s room if you got women’s parts?

    1. You mean there are biological differences between males and females? And the main identifier is the genitalia of said individual?

      I Fucking Love Science.

      I could care less about restrooms, but I do have a problem mandating that companies with shower facilities can’t set their own policies about who can use which facility.

      1. The choices are you either have no rules and say there can be no gender segregation or you have some kind of government “certified transsexual” program so that a business knows when a person is an actual transsexual and not some normal trying to use the other bathroom.

        The whole thing is absurd. But Scott and a lot of other people wanted it. So, they can live with it.

        1. This.

          Certification was predictable and inevitable.

          Next up – the gender fluid.

          1. My company just issued a transgender policy that requires transgender employees to declare their status to supervisors and HR in order to receive accommodation.

      2. I believe the NC law ensured that companies could set their own policies. It was (a) a prohibition on local governments wading into this issue and (b) a policy for government buildings.

        1. Yes. the Charlotte ordinance applied to local businesses. The state law stopped local governments from inflicting public accommodation law on private entities. But somehow the “Libertarians” at reason thought that the state law was the problem.

          I still haven’t figured out the intellectual gymnastics involved in that one.

          1. Its easy, John:

            Does this government action create special privileges or benefits for a fashionable group? If yes, “cultural” libertarians should support it.

            No gymnastics involved. You just have to take dictation from the Right People on what groups are fashionable today.

          2. Didn’t the state law also say people should use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificate while another law allowed the transgendered to get their birth certificate gender changed after surgery? That seems perfectly reasonable to me as an accommodation, especially combined with the fact that it only affects public facilities.

            1. That’s exactly what it said.

              Honestly, I can’t think of a better “resolution” to this whole farked-up mess.

            2. Yes, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. The only flaw is that North Carolina can’t force other states to amend birth certificates, so this law fixes it so that post-op, you can use the locker rooms and bathrooms of your new sex, even if you were born in another state.

      3. You mean to say that you Fucking LOVE Science!

        Get it right, troglodyte!

        (Hey, that rhymes!)

  4. If you want the government to show up with its guns and bend people to your will, you are going to have to play by its rules. How the hell else could the state enforce this law without making Trannies get some kind of government certification that they are in fact what they claim to be?

    If they didn’t want that, they shouldn’t have asked for the law.

    1. Perhaps instead of a certification, they could just wear an armband or something…

    2. How the hell else could the state enforce this law without making Trannies get some kind of government certification that they are in fact what they claim to be?

      The way it best enforces any law: arbitrarily.

      1. Well that makes it all better then.

    3. If they didn’t want that, they shouldn’t have asked for the law.

      The re-write almost seems concocted in this vein. “You’re scared we’ll have bathroom police? *Here’s* your fucking bathroom police! Good luck getting Kim Davis to sign off on your gender reassignment certificate. Assholes.”

      1. I want the government to come and make people accept me but how dare the government expect me to play by their rules in return!!

  5. If you recall, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill in March requiring individuals to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender listed on their birth certificate.

    I believe this is incorrect. As I recall, this part of the law only applies in schools and other government buildings. Private enterprises are free to adopt their own policies, without interference from busybody localities.

    Without reviewing the new law, it seems to be substituting one government document (the new gender certificate) for another (the revised birth certificate) and adding a requirement that a doctor certify that your gender status. I have no idea what the government requirements were for revising the birth certificate. Whether this new law is actually more burdensome than the old one will depend on that fact. Perhaps an intrepid reporter would track that down before passing judgment?

    1. Perhaps an intrepid reporter would track that down before passing judgment?

      Or just not flush any and all facts, news, and information about birth certificate revision down the memory hole *immediately*?

    2. I don’t think it’s a substitute. I’m guessing that it’s just a way for some one born in another state to get the same result as someone born in NC.

  6. Look, people may not want to admit it, but this is the problem with “public accommodation” laws and/or “special protections.” There’s usually some innocent people who get screwed over.

    Doesn’t the Civil Rights Act in general make sex-separate public restrooms illegal? Whether it involves men or woman, transgender or not, to keep one sex out of the other’s restroom is discriminatory, isn’t it?

    No, I’m not saying “tear up the CRA and call it a day,” but you have to wonder whether these things were invariably going to be problematic for society at large.

    1. No, I’m not saying “tear up the CRA and call it a day,”

      Maybe you should.

      1. I’m not in the mood to be eviscerated by Rachel Maddow, as the amazing wunderkind schools me on why discrimination should be legal in some cases (against people with religious-based objections) but illegal in most other cases. All while claiming “equality.”

        1. Rand’s early lefty outreach program reminded me of a dog/cat reconciliation effort.

          1. That’s what I was thinking of!

      2. Maybe you should.

        Meh. The part of the CRA that forces the government to not discriminate is legitimate. Telling private citizens who to associate with, is not. How bout we just tear out the shitty part?

        1. The part of the CRA that forces the government to not discriminate is legitimate.

          The CRA doesn’t do that. The CRA applies to private individuals. There was no need to pass a CRA for governments. The Supreme Court already did that in Brown and its progeny.

          1. The CRA applies to private individuals.

            Civil Rights Act of 1964

            Title I[edit]
            Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements.

            Title III[edit]
            Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

            Title IV[edit]
            Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

            Title VI[edit]
            Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.

            [emphasis mine]

            1. It did some things Good catch But states were already prohibited from discriminating by Brown. So the net effect was to give courts an excuse to mandate things like forced busing, which I do t think you would approve of you understood how it worked.

        2. The part of the CRA that forces the government to not discriminate is legitimate.

          I’m dubious. Amendments 1-10 make plenty of room to void actions that the CRA was supposed to void explicitly and the current Title IX debacle pretty clearly demonstrates that, if it exists, the government’s gonna use the law to tell private citizens who to associate with disparately.

  7. an ordinance passed in Charlotte, which would have allowed transgender people to use the bathroom or locker room for the gender they identify with and prohibited discrimination for housing and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

    No, it would have forced businesses to permit someone who identifies as transgendered to use the bathroom of their choice. The absurdity being that a business that evicted a biological man who identifies as a woman out of the women’s restroom or showers would’ve been liable for civil rights violations.

    One wonders how many sociopaths would temporarily identify as women so that they could camp out in the women’s locker room and wait to file civil rights lawsuits when the aggrieved owner finally kicks them out rather than losing his entire business. Idiotic doesn’t even begin to describe Charlotte’s SJW signalfest of a law.

    1. Absent a government certification program, what is to prevent someone from “identifying as a woman” just long enough to create a lawsuit?

      1. That’s the point. You could stroll into the women’s dressing area with your overalls on and declare that you’re a butch lesbian trapped in a man’s body.

        It’s as though Charlotte made a bet with Seattle to see who could have the more idiotic municipal leaders.

        1. Non-op trans butch lesbian.

          That’s what I am when I want to check out women in the gym showers.

      2. I’m sure supporters of the law would take such an outcome gladly. Lawyers get to sue people. Some old conservative that reminds them of dad gets railroaded. The media gets to report on the simmering evil of transphobia in society. The goal of such laws after all, is the ramming of social progress down everyone’s throat.

    2. The absurdity being that a business that evicted a biological man who identifies as a woman out of the women’s restroom or showers would’ve been liable for civil rights violations.

      Or, conversely, by not evicting a biological man from the women’s room, they would be guilty of civil rights violations because they discriminated against women by denying them a same-sex bathroom.

      1. Every underemployed lawyer in the nation should be looking at passing the bar in NC.

        1. Unemployed sociopaths should be carving their “Will hang out in competitors’ women’s room for $$$.” signs into men’s room stalls as well.

        2. Every underemployed lawyer in the nation should be looking at passing the pissing in a bar in NC.

          FTFY

    3. One wonders how many sociopaths would temporarily identify as women so that they could camp out in the women’s locker room and wait to file civil rights lawsuits when the aggrieved owner finally kicks them out rather than losing his entire business. Idiotic doesn’t even begin to describe Charlotte’s SJW signalfest of a law.
      Which is exactly what the hundreds of cities and something like a dozen states that have done this have seen.

      Or, y’know, not.

      1. Shhh.

      2. There have in fact been problems already. A female security guard kicked a man dressed as a woman from the ladies room and got in big trouble for it. A man went into the YMCA women’s locker room and they wouldn’t kick him out for fear of getting in trouble. It need not be thousands of cases–the problem is that if you are the female victim of a man in your shower you can’t call for help because no one can kick him out. Even calling for help is bias.

        1. A female security guard kicked a man dressed as a woman from the ladies room and got in big trouble for [assault].

          A man went into the YMCA women’s locker room and they wouldn’t kick him out [because the policy set by the YMCA’s national headquarters is to allow transgenders to use the bathroom of their gender identity].

  8. Doesn’t the Civil Rights Act in general make sex-separate public restrooms illegal?

    Or mandatory, depending on whether you think denying women same-sex facilities is discrimination against women. I could argue it either way, and the current progademic thinking on safe spaces and all would certainly support my theory that its discriminatory to deny a protected class their own facilities.

    In fact, a smart lawyer might challenge transgender access laws on exactly that basis – that they discriminate against biological women, based on disparate impact.

    The vast majority of trannies are M to F. A law mandating transgender bathroom access will thus lead to a disproportionate number of non-biological women using the women’s facilities, compared to non-biological men using the men’s facilities. Thus, disparate impact.

    1. I made that point when this first came up. Basically these laws fuck straight women who don’t like showering and going to the bathroom with men. It is a huge disparate impact. But somehow anyone who points that out is just a bigot.

    2. Or mandatory, depending on whether you think denying women same-sex facilities is discrimination against women. I could argue it either way, and the current progademic thinking on safe spaces and all would certainly support my theory that its discriminatory to deny a protected class their own facilities.

      Ah. You raise a good point.

      It seems proggies simply argue the “benefits” that a protected minority group can receive, and if there are more “benefits” than potential setbacks then they deserve a safe space.

      So, basically, progs are okay with *certain* kinds of discrimination if it at least provides some sort of “benefit” to that group.

      Which I suppose explains feminism.

  9. the government should treat gay and transgender people the same way they treat straight people

    A law requiring bathroom use be based on biology does not discriminate against gay people or transgendered people any more than it discriminates against poets or lumberjacks.

    Should the government be in the business of deciding who gets to use restrooms? No. But since the overwhelming majority of the public is fine with the government deciding that (either through anti-discrimination laws or through bills like this one), I’d say there’s little hope of government-free bathrooms.

    1. the government should treat gay and transgender people the same way they treat straight people

      As ever, the idea that having gay, transgender, and straight people all use the bathroom for their actual biological sex is discriminatory seems , , , counterintuitive to me.

      But that’s because, when the activists told me sex and gender were totally different things, I believed them. Now, when its convenient to smear sex and gender together, we are told they are one and the same.

    2. I know this is going to make me sound like a knuckledragging hick, but I’m going to say it anyway.

      Up until very recently, the united states did have a VERY libertarian solution to bathroom use. Businesses and individuals figured it out through implicit behaviors and unwritten social contracts. This became a problem foisted upon us by a very tiny minority of activists who– I dunno, thought the climate was right to get the government involved.

      The North Carolina law is a reaction to that– a fear, if you will– of having something foisted upon people who either didn’t want it or didn’t even consider it to be a problem.

      The concept of “transsexual” as it was called up until.. oh, I’ll say a year an a half ago– where people would go through hormone therapy and then a sex change operation is nothing new. I remember in the late 70s and 80s occasionally running into people in the workplace who used to be one sex or another, and are now the opposite. Usually a man became a woman, but it existed. The thought of which bathroom they could use never, EVER came up, and no one was ever abused or mistreated. And I lived in flyover country in what would be considered pretty damned red by modern standards.

      It wasn’t until we were instructed that someone could change their sexual identity on a whim– and then demand (and consequently sue if denied) that they use whatever bathroom they wanted, that this whole thing even got into the national conversation.

      1. Renne Richards played on the women’s tennis tour. I don’t know of anyone who gave a shit about people who had the surgery using the other bathroom. Hell, the surgery is very convincing. You couldn’t stop that if you wanted to.

        Yes, this whole thing was created out of nothing. It is all about the progressive gay community finding a new cause after the gay marriage decision and a new way to endlessly fuck with people. That is all this is. And God damn Scott and Robby for not being smart enough to figure that out.

  10. Facing pressure from the NBA, the bill would create sex reassignment certificates.

    Why the fuck would the National Basketball Association care? Or are they worried about someone pulling a “Juwanna Mann”? And even so, wouldn’t that really be the WNBA’s problem?

    1. Big Groupies are behind it all.

      1. Its the NBA. Big strip club.

    2. Who the ruck cares if you get an NBA all star game? I am pretty sure the Charlottes Strip Clubs and hip hop joints can make it without the influx of cash.

  11. Thank god there is nothing important going on in the world.

    1. This is really the kind of ridiculous “culture wars” shit that I’d expect Bill O’Reilly to cover 24/7.

    2. First they restricted bathroom use to biological sex, and I said nothing.

      Then they bombed Ataturk airport…

  12. Fresh out of fucks for this shit.

    1. Would you like one of my fucks?

  13. To sum up:

    This article gets some basic facts in reporting absolutely wrong.

    It establishes what should be a non-partisan issue into a Republican-Democrat binary.

    It promotes no libertarian interest, and polemically promotes a non-libertarian, progressive interest in favor of expanding government.

    When did Reason decide that it wanted to be the more boring version of the Daily Show, again?

    1. Pretty good summary, IT. The only thing I would add is that it reaches a conclusion (the new law is worse) without doing any of the homework necessary to support that conclusion.

      if its easier to get the new gender certificate than to get you birth certificate changed, the new law is actually makes it easier than the old law. But Scott couldn’t be arsed to look into that, apparently.

      1. Sorry, Scott. Should be “Alex couldn’t be arsed to look into that”.

        1. It’s fucking ridiculous. This could have been copy-pasted from any number of generic leftist sites by one of their interns.

      2. Scott did not write the piece.

        1. Yes, but his fingerprints are all over it. I think there’s collusion here.

          Who knew what, and when did they know it? I say we subpoena Scott’s emails.

          1. His Reason emails or the ones on his private server?

            1. Private server. And if I see one fucking redaction, he gets indicted.

    2. Maybe Soave got lonely and leaned on KMW to hire another equivocation specialist who would alienate long-term subscribers even more.

      Coming up next month: a special three-hour roundtable about how much Donald Trump sucks featuring Gillespie, Anthony “El” Fisher, and special guest Cathy Young.

      1. I am with you. You’d think they would hire interns who “got it,” you know? They are not getting another donation until they hire interns who are up to my standard.

      2. Cathy Young.

        The first words in the paragraph three of every Cathy Young story ever:

        On the one hand…

      3. Well at least I no longer have to ask why national review is the only magazine going downhill.

  14. *puts on nitrile gloves*

    Show me your junk, and then tell me what junk you want to have, and then show me your junk again.

    1. Sooooo, just another Tuesday night for you? ;o)

  15. If this draft were to become law, it would permit the government to create an official document recognizing someone’s gender reassignment.

    Well well well well well.

    Well.

    Well.

    So, like Ireland which was considered one of the most transgender-progressive countries in the western world?

    1. Think about what Alex is saying here. On the one hand the transgendered are demanding government enforcement of their “rights”. On the other hand, it is just horrible that said government expects them to submit to some kind of process to establish they are in fact what they claim to be.

      Yeah, that makes sense.

      1. I’ve been predicting that the “Irish” solution is the ONLY solution, not because I want the solution, but because the activists are implicitly demanding it.

        No one, not the Obama administration, not anyone except some libertarians (of which I’m one) have claimed that anyone can use any bathroom they want at any time.

        The argument I’m hearing is that transgendered people get to use the bathroom they want, but the rest of us are still stuck in our traditional assignments. When I ask the obvious question: If anyone can claim to be the opposite of their biological sex- or even ‘non-binary’- doesn’t that effectively just declare all bathrooms unisex?

        Fidgeting and discomfort ensue and then I’m told “no, transgender people should be able to use the bathroom of their choice”. So that means there must be some kind of metric to measure transgenderness- and the pink star of David will be assigned by a government official after an application process has satisfied an unelected bureaucrat.

        1. That is where it leads. The other question I always ask that no one seems to want to answer is why is the desire to use the other gender’s restroom because you are “transgender” special such that it gets accommodated but just wanting to because you don’t like being around other men or the women’s room is always cleaner isn’t?

          1. I can’t peer into the hearts of men, women, or the nonbinary on this issue.

            If I really… REALLY felt like I was a woman trapped in a man’s body, who knows what it would be like to go into the men’s bathroom. I suppose that if I really suffered (yes, I said suffered) from this malady, that it would be as uncomfortable as forcing my 14 yr old daughter to use the mens’ room. She wouldn’t like it, one bit.

            It might very well BE just like that for someone who really feels like they’re the opposite sex.

            But the problem is it brings up all sorts of curious contradictions. To name one off the top of my head: If you’re a man trapped in a woman’s body, then that presumes you want to go into a bathroom full of… other women. Well if that bathroom were non-specific to women then… doesn’t that DEFEAT THE FUCKING PURPOSE? It’s almost like the whole transgender thing DEMANDS that the bathrooms remain assigned to biological sex– but except for you, because then you wouldn’t be in a bathroom designed for what you feel you really are.

            See how confusing this all is?

            1. It’s only confusing if you start with the assumption that bathrooms are based on biological sex rather then gender identity.

              Or to put it another way…

              Pretend you didn’t know that Laverne Cox and Buck Angel were (respectively) a transwoman and transman. Mix them together with a bunch of other (presumbably cisgender) folks. They head to the bathroom, which choice is going to violate people’s expectations?

              If you said “Buck Angel going to the men’s room”, then you’re a dirty fucking liar. People see him, they’re going to expect him in the men’s room. They’re going to get at least weirded out, if not upset, to see him go into the women’s room. Laverne Cox is of course flipped. People will expect her in the women’s room, and be weirded out by her in the men’s room.

              This social reaction only makes sense if our expectation is based on presented gender identity, not biological sex. It’s the same reason why butch women sometimes run into problems, because other people think they’re “really” a man because they appear masculine.

              1. Do you not get that this is not about Buck Angel, Laverne Cox, or people like them?

                It’s about the person who identifies as female so they can use the YMCA women’s changing room every week when the teenage female swim club is there. Do they identify as female at any other time? Who knows? Asking is bigotry.

                It’s about people who claim to be trans–without any intention of ever ‘itioning’. The genderfaddists.

                And it’s about the fact that no man would ever care if Buck Angel walked into a men’s room–and most wouldn’t give a damn if Laverne Cox walked in with him–or any other woman. Because men generally don’t freak like that.

                But women do.

                The same female SJW morons clamoring for this are also clamoring for ‘safe spaces’ for women, and women only this and women only that–because they think–or at least claim to think– that all men are deranged quasi rapists just waiting for the chance to have at them.

                They don’t just want women only spaces–they’d like women only planets.

                Yet not a one of them can see that opening bathrooms to men–particularly men with admitted and/or evident sexual identity issues–might be a problem.

            2. Paul,

              If you post this, or another version of this, on a comment thread where individuals who support the point of view which you are having a problem understanding, would you consider doing me the courtesy of re-posting said correspondence here on a future thread? Thank you.

              Now I shall be un-serious with regards to a line twice used by you: … felt like I was a woman trapped in a man’s body

            3. Your username confuses me.

  16. Controversial North Carolina Bathroom Law Could Change, but May Make Life More Difficult For Transgender People

    I think Reason spoke too soon with that “Americans forget how good they have it” article earlier. In actuality, things are as horrendous as they’ve ever been.

  17. Thus wendeth the path of Statism, from one fix to the next, circling back, crossing paths, tunneling under and bridging over, but always forward to Progress, never backwards to Liberty.

  18. Briefly looking over the draft bill, it doesn’t just deal with gender reassignment surgery. It does other stuff, too.

    For one thing, the draft bill provides that the state antidiscrimination standards will be the same as the standards as in federal law – that is, anything which is a suspect classification in federal law will be a suspect classification under state law. Or to put it in everyday language, once Congress or the courts amend the federal antidiscrimination laws to cover sexual orientation or “gender identity,” the state law will automatically change, too, without any further action by the state legislature being required. The only exception is bathrooms, as described in the post – if you don’t have a sex-change certificate, then a private business has the *option* of making you use the bathroom of your birth sex, and in government-owned bathrooms, you would *have* to use the bathroom of your birth sex.

    But wait, there’s more!

    1. The draft bill also explicitly “restores the right to sue” for employment discrimination. Under House Bill 2, the state Human Relations Commission (or whatever it’s called) had been limited to mediation and conciliation in discrimination cases – cases involving private parties – with the proviso that the law about the Human Relations Commission did *not* create a private right of action. The draft will deletes that “no right of action” language, so that there *is* a right of action. As the official summary and subheading says, it restores the “right to sue.”

      Finally, they appoint a commission to investigate what if any *additional* changes should be made to the antidiscrimination laws of the state.

      1. So, as RC Dean points out, HB 2 only “oppresses” people who use government-owned bathrooms by requiring the bathroom to match their equipment. HB2 also shields private businesses from local harassment based on accusations of “anti-gay” or “anti-trans” discrimination. That’s not oppressive by Reason’s usual standards.

        The draft bill doesn’t let local governments regulate discrimination, but it *does* pave the way for state law to expand its categories of protected classes – just as soon as the federal law expands, which I suspect will be fairly soon. Either Congress or the courts will extend the federal laws to make sexual orientation and genderi identity into protected classes, and then those categories *automatically* would become protected under state law, as well.

        1. just as soon as the federal law expands, which I suspect will be fairly soon. Either Congress or the courts will extend the federal laws to make sexual orientation and genderi identity into protected classes, and then those categories *automatically* would become protected under state law, as well.

          I said that the court deciding that the 14th Amendment required state recognition of gay marriage would inevitably lead to courts expanding the CRA to cover gays and no one other than RC and a couple others would believe me. I was called a homophobe and a paranoid and a liar for pointing that out.

          Now those same people (not you) are going to put all that down the memory hole and say “we always knew this would happen.” It is just fucking appalling.

          1. I was making similar predictions and got similar accusations.

            Well, strictly, I was talking more specifically about the *political* imperatives of the situation, how recognizing same-sex marriage is, *part of the same political process* by which the Civil Rights Act (and its state counterparts) are expanding.

            1. They just refused to believe. It was just too important to be seen as being “pro gay”.

            2. Join the club. I’ve been on the bandwagon for civil unions for gays since roughly the 70s, back when I was a hardcore socialist. It might very well be the only political opinion I’ve stayed consistent on since that time. It’s been fun seeing myself go from being considered a Satan-worshipping libertine hosting bisexual orgies on my pentagram-covered floor (if only I were that awesome in reality, heh), to an auxiliary member of Opus Dei, at the ready to capture and inquisition unruly women and sexual transgressives.

              1. Wait, you mean that *wasn’t* you I saw at last month’s meeting…oops, I’ve said too much.

                1. Didn’t go to last month’s Opus Dei meeting. My pentagram floors needed waxing that week.

              2. I made the point several times that by not having their unions recognized by the state and thus not subjected to the mandatory terms of state family law, that gays were in fact more free than straights. People on here lost their minds over that. Before gay marriage, gays were free to be polygamous, didn’t have to worry about prenuptual agreements or their partner fucking them out of half their retirement or savings. None of that bullshit.

                The only thing being married gets you besides screwed on your taxes if you both work is the ability to get the government to put a gun to the head of anyone who doesn’t recognize your union. That is it. But constitutional gay marriage as opposed to civil unions (which is nothing but telling the courts to enforce consensual contracts made by gay couples) is the pro freedom position? Really?

                1. Well, your point and mine overlap in some areas, in that, yes, the point of having the government recognize your union is to force others to accept it…including, I think, Mom and Dad (“you may not affirm who I am, Daddy, but the County Clerk’s office does!”).

                  1. But I think if one party earns most of the income, there’s still advantages to getting recognized as married. I don’t think the tax advantages are the driving force in this movement, or that it’s a libertarian initiative to roll back the IRS, but I think there are times when an official recognition of one’s union can bring advantages.

                    I simply think that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

                    I mean, broadening the definition of business expense to include goat orgies can be spun as libertarian, but if there’s a movement for government-sponsored goat orgies I don’t think libertarianism is the motivation.

                2. You do know that if a couple (gay, straight, or somewhere inbetween) doesn’t want to get married, it doesn’t have to, right?

                  That said, while you clearly have a negative view of legal marriage, there’s no call to lie about it. Since I got married my taxes dropped, as did our insurance costs, my husband is now building credit, we can buy a house in both our name, hospital visitation and medical power of attorney are easier to secure, in the event of death inheritance will be simplified and taxed substantially less, adoption is going to be easier, the hubby suddenly got a host of previously-denied DOD spouse benefits and so-on.

                  The benefits of legal marriage are well-documented.

                  That said, if civil unions were offered as a serious nation-wide compromise anytime prior to 2012, it would have been eagerly accepted. Because gay folks kept running into problems that would have been significantly reduced if not resolved by *something*. But over 20 states constitutionally banned civil unions as well as marriage. So yes, state-by-state civil unions was, for many years, simply not good enough.

                  1. “If you hadn’t resisted so much I wouldn’t have had to hit you so hard!”

                    1. The states which refused to recognize civil unions were worried that they would be a precedent for state-recognized same-sex marriage.

                      Paranoid hicks.

          2. Either Congress or the courts will extend the federal laws to make sexual orientation and genderi identity into protected classes,

            The employment regulations under the CRA have already taken that leap. Even though the statute itself refers only to sex discrimination, the agencies have unilaterally added gender discrimination to the list of verboten employment practices.

            Even though there is exactly zero statutory authority for this.

            1. The employment regulations under the CRA have already taken that leap.

              School districts all over the country took the leap as soon as it occurred to them. Most of them had transgender bathroom policies being put in place before the ink dried on HB2.

          3. If no one believed you, it’s because the court’s slow move towards finding the CRA prohibits discrimination against gay and trans folk started years before the marriage decision and rests on different precedents.

            Yes, there’s a good chance it’ll happen, but it’s unrelated to the marriage decision.

            1. In the sense that Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens are unrelated. They even have different last names!

            2. the court’s slow move towards finding the CRA prohibits discrimination against gay and trans folk started years before

              Of course, the CRA mentions “sex” discrimination, and has no mention at all of “gender” discrimination. There is absolutely no basis for any court to conclude that the CRA prohibits discrimination against gay and transgendered people.

            3. Do you have a citation for that piece of revisionism? I know of no court that reap gays as a protected class.

              Is that the story now? That it was happening anyway and sacred gay marriage had nothing to do with it? Really?

  19. I know I’m an old fart, but it wasn’t that long ago that Reason published articles under its imprimatur that were worth the read. Balko in particular was consistently excellent.

    Maybe I’m weird, but if we’re gonna have people accuse Reason (somewhat credibly, IMO) of turning into a leftist rag can it at least be an *interesting* leftist rag? Publish Mickey Kaus, or give Sargon of Akkad a paycheck, or give Scott Alexander a voice and a paycheck. Instead of scribbling utterly boring “me too” shit about gay marriage, what about letting Eliezer Yudkowsky tell us about the advantages of polyamory? Rather than the same bullshit about how utterly spectacular the last 20 years of kinda-managed kinda-capitalism have been, how about acknowledging how utterly fucked some segments of that economy are and giving the microphone to people whose views *aren’t* well represented in DC, whether Austrian or distributionist or whatever. Hell, maybe instead of Reason’s ignorant reporters screaming “NON-INTERVENTIONISM” about everything in current affairs that smacks of foreign policy, they could find some raging anarchist former Army Major who might be well read and actually know something about other countries that couldn’t have been taken from Wikipedia.

    I’d read the hell out of that magazine, to say nothing of a magazine that takes all the weirdo rightist, the weirdo leftists, and the weirdo libertarians and lets them fight it out in the same editorial space.

    1. I am fairly sure that the entire Reason Foundation now exists for the sole purpose of allowing the Kochs to piss off Rockwell and co while writing the effort off their taxes.

      And I would read that magazine as well. Only a matter of time before Sargon ends up at unz, taki, or somewhere similar.

      1. I think you’re right. And I’m not the biggest Rockwell fan, but between Rockwell and Reason I at least know what’s going to keep me entertained (comments excluded).

    2. Who is this former Army Major and where can I read his work?

      1. I am a former Army Lieutenant Colonel…but I am more of a minarchist, so no raging anarchy from me. Sorry.

    3. Do you have a newsletter? How can I subscribe?

    4. Have you checked out Spiked? Brendan O’Neil, who writes for Reason, is an editor over there. They are my definition of “interesting leftist (non-Marxist) rag”.

    5. Publish Mickey Kaus, or give Sargon of Akkad a paycheck, or give Scott Alexander a voice and a paycheck. Instead of scribbling utterly boring “me too” shit about gay marriage, what about letting Eliezer Yudkowsky tell us about the advantages of polyamory?

      You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes ‘entertainment’.

      And let’s leave it at that.

  20. By the way, for all those people who say they’re just going to criticize antidiscrimination law in general, but not object to the addition of new protected classes. I totally hear you – once you’ve forbidden discrimination based on race, you’re *logically required* to force businesses to hire gays and transgenders. It makes perfect sense, and your logic is absolutely unassailable. (/sarc, by the way, but assume I’m serious).

    OK, then, this bill “restores the right to sue” private businesses for *any* kind of discrimination – race, national origin, whatever. What better chance to go back to first principles and object to discrimination laws *in general,* all the way down the line – I mean, it’s not a *federal* bill, but it’s a state bill to *copy* the federal Civil Rights Act, so if the federal law was wrong, I suppose a copycat state law would also be wrong, and you can advocate all this without being a “homophobe!”

    1. I had a boss when I was living in Texas who was from Pittsburgh. Of course a ton of the people who worked for him were Cowboys fans. He used to joke that it was immoral and illegal for him to discriminate against anyone for their race, sex or religion but it was perfectly appropriate in fact desirable to discriminate against people for their choice of NFL team.

      It was a joke but it made a serious point. The law does not prohibit all discrimination, just discrimination based on certain criteria. No one at reason ever seems to grasp that fact or ask the obvious question “if these things are bad why is expanding them to cover more classes of people a good thing?”

      1. But don’t you see, once you’ve denied Lester Maddox his right to have an all-white restaurant, then inexorable logic requires that you force bakers to make gay cakes. You’ve *conceded the principle,* and any attempt to limit the list of protected classes is OMG BIGOTRY!!!

        1. The thing I always like to point out is that the right to free association is recognized by almost everyone, including those who support “public accommodation” laws. If a group of klansmen walked into a soul food restaurant owned and operated by black people, nobody would complain if the owner told them to get the fuck out. That’s the right of the business owners. The other side of the coin is that if those same klansmen owned a restaurant across town, they would have the right to kick the black people out. It’s unfortunate, but every right has a use that is offensive to reasonable people and maybe even damaging to society.

          The 1A protects Scientology, radical Islam, and neo-Nazi rallies. The 2A allows some people to get firearms who shouldn’t have them. The 4A and 8A allow some criminals to skate by when they’re obviously guilty. But these are things that must be tolerated simply because the alternative – not having these rights at all – would be overwhelmingly worse.

  21. the gender listed on their birth certificate

    Well, *there’s* your problem: Lots of people — asylum seekers, for example — don’t have a birth certificate.

    1. I wonder if Abelard changed *his* birth certificate?

    2. The transgendered Muslim refugee is to cosmotarians what the White Buffalo was to the Sioux.

    3. You know what’s funny?

      Nobody has a gender listed on their birth certificate. Everybody has their sex on their certificate, but not their gender.

      Go ahead. Look at your own birth certificate. It will have a box for “Sex” with either an “M” or an “F” in it.

      1. “Thank you for pointing out that defect in the law, we need to change this ASAP!”

        /prog

      2. … and?

        Sorry, but the main reason trans* folk go get their birth certificate changed isn’t because they find it offensive. It’s because of bullshit like NC’s law that makes it necessary.

        That is to say… if government stopped policing people’s behavior based on their birth certificate and driver’s license?, then trans* folk would stop trying to get them changed.
        ________
        ?There’s a lot of horror stories of trans folk trying to get a driver’s license where the DMV employee refuses, saying that they’re in costume because their gender presentation doesn’t match their birth certificate.

        1. If they want the government to force people to go along, how can they complain

        2. It’s because of bullshit like NC’s law that makes it necessary.

          No, it’s not. The reason why defining things like gender and race are required is because many want to use the government with its guns to force accommodations based upon these definitions, which then requires government to set standards to dune race, gender, etc.

          Because without some definition, there can be no enforcement.

          Move further along this got process and it’ll get worse as some groups may be receiving more accommodations than others in some areas (eg college admissions), others will take advantage by claiming identity to groups for which don’t belong.

          Which will require further, more stringent definitions of these groups, along with tighter controls on confirming someone’s self provided group identity.

          All of which is required to exist to enforce the accommodations.

          Absolutely no government certification nor definition is required of sex, gender, race, or anything else to allow private individuals and private companies the right of free association.

          So sorry, but you have it backwards. It’s the people who are pushing the ideas of accommodations based upon group identity and using the threat of government force to endure those ideals who require the strict labeling.

        3. ?There’s a lot of horror stories

          Define “a lot”.

  22. It’s only a matter of time to when a white, Christian, conservative, NRA member with a Middle-Eastern heritage shoots up an NC bathroom over this issue.

  23. “a hassle for these individuals to choose their bathroom?”

    No, it fuckin’ doesnt. Going to the bathroom isnt a major event in life. It’s like blowing your nose. If you wear a dress go in the women’s room, close the stall door and piss. Then walk out of the bathroom. Don’t pay attention to anyone in there and no on in there will pay attention to you. The fuckin’ proggies just cant help but stir the shit at every opportunity.

    1. Shit is their muse, their medium, and their message.

    2. Going to the bathroom isnt a major event in life.

      Speak for yourself. My defecations have been nominated for 5 Emmy Awards.

      “A delightful romp”
      – The New Yorker

      “GILMORE shocks, awes, and delights”
      – Vanity Fair

      “Wonderfully enchanting fare”
      – Variety

      1. Didn’t you almost win the Golden Turd one year? There was some sort of controversy with the vote counting as I recall.

        1. They robbed him and gave it Crusty Juggler as some kind of lifetime achievement, it’s finally his turn this year thing. It was some real greaseball shit.

      2. Hey, has anyone heard from Sandi lately?

        1. Last heard from defecating on/in…Cleveland?

    3. Sorry to break the news, but this applies to locker rooms/showers and dorms as well, including in primary/high schools.

      1. My college gym shower had no walls. I am quite certain I would have noticed tits.

  24. Alex Thomas,

    Please explain the Alt-Text/link.

    Thank you,

    Charles

  25. the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill in March requiring individuals to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender listed on their birth certificate.

    I read the law the text of which you provided through your link and it does not require such a thing.

    Businesses were quick to criticize McCrory and the General Assembly

    Linking to a student’s college radio blog is not evidence that businesses were ‘quick to criticize’ the governor and the General Assembly. In fact businesses are ALWAYS affected negatively by these so-called “anti-discrimination” ordinances which only serve to line the pockets of “civil rights” lawyers so I call B.S. on this one.

    1. I AM SHOCKED! Are you implying that some or all “civil rights” efforts might be a scam?

  26. “North Carolina’s General Assembly is putting up a major hurdle to a minority group’s self-determination”
    What sort of self-determination lets a man with boobs but a penis use the lady’s room. Women adjust their clothing, change clothes, and generally feel vulnerable in a rest-room, and these laws apply to showers/locker rooms also. Most women freak out if a man is in their shower. They do not know how he/she “identifies” and a man with both sets of hardware is simply not acceptable as a “woman” to real women. After surgery, maybe. And this applies to schools too. Nakedness equals sexuality to a very large number of people and we have customs that enforce staying clothed. If a man with breast implants or who merely “feels” like a woman can go into the lady’s shower, why not just walk around naked anywhere? Why draw any lines at all? Of course a few people are ok with that, but most people are very decidedly NOT ok with it.

  27. Has anyone who has declared themselves transgender/mx/hx/xi/non-binary who was denied the use of the bathroom of their choice what experience they’re being deprived by being the wrong bathroom? Serious question?

    1. I believe Gavin Grimm (born female) claimed that not being allowed to use the school men’s restroom was “stigmatizing.”

  28. I take it that all the carnival freak shows have been long since put out of business by stuff available for free in everyday life.

  29. boys use the boys room. girls use the girls room. everyone is treated the same. no exceptions for crazy people.

  30. When I feel pretty I like to stroll through the girls’ showers at the local high school.

  31. “As Reason’s Scott Shackford noted when House Bill 2 was passed, the government should treat gay and transgender people the same way they treat straight people. Instead, North Carolina’s General Assembly is putting up a major hurdle to a minority group’s self-determination. Despite the backlash to House Bill 2, legislators are only slightly loosening the restrictions they’ve placed on people who, like everyone, have to use the bathroom.”

    I was unaware straight people could use facilities designated for the opposite sex with impunity, or is HB2 bad because it allows committed transgendereds to use the facilities designated for the opposite sex that straight people generally do not. How this amounts to objectionable different treatment is confusing.

    Also, treating people the same is a much different metric than self-determination and, Alex Thomas changing the metric you are judging the law by is dishonest argumentation. As well as the fact that there are aspects of one’s identity that a person has no or limited ability to self-determine.

    1. This started because of the Charlotte City Council’s hubris to use the force of law to change an etiquette regarding restrooms and similar sex segregated facilities that had been largely enforced by custom and civility. What they wanted to change to means sex segregated facilities are unenforceable. For instance, a man who is determined to harass women in their facilities cannot be asked to leave just on the basis that he is male if he claims to be a woman, as such a claim is unverifiable. Yet Thomas takes pains to describe the Charlotte Ordnance as if it were unobtrusive and inoffensive, and HB 2 the problem despite protecting the private sector’s right to choose which etiquette to follow.

  32. why…why…. why do we need any laws on where to pee?

    if a transgender is convincing (takes more than a quick glance to spot), then you never even know they are using the “wrong” bathroom. if they are not, they are going to be out of place wherever they pee. as long as they go in a stall, and close the door….. who cares?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.