Donald Trump

Trump Flip-Flops, Now Supports North Carolina's Transgender Bathroom Regulations

Make America ¯_(?)_/¯ Again.

|

Bathroom
David Bro/ZUMA Press/Newscom

There was a time when Donald Trump actually resisted the siren song of populist culture war backlashes. Back in April, Trump said he disagreed with the part of North Carolina's legislation that monitored public bathroom use and required transgender people to use the gender on their birth certificate in government and school restrooms.

At the time, Trump said, "There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble."

But never mind that. Asked about it again by a reporter at a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, Trump has switched to support North Carolina passing the law, based apparently on what appears to be federalist-style accommodation:

"I'm going with the state," Trump said. "The state, they know what's going on, they see what's happening and generally speaking I'm with the state on things like this. I've spoken with your governor, I've spoken with a lot of people and I'm going with the state."

HB2 is about more than transgender bathroom use. That component gets the most attention, though it's probably the part of the law that is utterly unenforceable as a practical matter, regardless of whether it should be mandated. The law also overturns municipal level antidiscrimination ordinances that expand the classes that may be protected that aren't already included in state law (not just transgender people, but gay and lesbian people). This was all a backlash against the City of Charlotte expanding its antidiscrimination ordinances.

The Washington Blade says that he had already previously flip-flopped, but it apparently didn't get much attention back then. He previously said that "local communities and states should make the decision." That's an interesting choice of words because there's a conflict here over whether communities or the state should be able to control antidiscrimition laws and minimum wage levels within their respective borders. North Carolina's legislators are telling Charlotte what kind of laws it may pass. On the other hand, really, Trump is probably just saying here that it's not a matter for the federal government to get involved at all.

But where things stand, the federal government is very much involved. The Department of Justice has asked a federal judge this week to suspend the implementation of the law while the government fights it with the claim it's violating the civil rights of LGBT citizens. There are at least five federal lawsuits now, both in support and opposition, related to implementing HB2. So his response suggests that a DOJ under his administration might pull back.

Advertisement

NEXT: How Local Anti-Violence Activists Brought the Alton Sterling Shooting Video to the Public

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. Are you kidding? This is a feature with Donald Trump. He can flip on an issue and, unlike other politicians, not even bother with a pretense of rational justifications. That’s why I totally trust him on Second Amendment issues.

    1. That’s why I totally trust him on Second Amendment issues.

      meh.

      2nd amendment issues are going to be in the Supreme Court. Hillary WILL try and find new justices who will prioritize gutting it. Trump won’t – not because of any particular ethical concerns or interest in the 2nd Amendment, but because his party needs that issue.

    2. I’ve spoken with your governor, I’ve spoken with a lot of people

      There’s your justification.

    3. The sad part is that while Trump doesn’t seem to have any political convictions, I can at least give him the benefit of the doubt compared to Clinton. I have no idea what Trump’s policies will be, and I doubt he does either. But I do have a pretty good idea of what Hillary’s policies will be, and it’s unlikely that Trump’s policies will be worse.

      It’s definitely a possibility, but it will be hard for Trump to be worse on the first or second amendment than Hillary.

      1. Your lack of imagination frightens me. My problem with Trump, other than Trump himself, is the possibility of him having a mass of devotees undeterred by reality, like our current president has, apologizing and justifying every bad policy, backing every terrible decision, rationalizing every awful outcome. I suppose the only saving grace might be that there will likely be few Trumpbots in the news media.

      2. What do you expect of a transpartied gambling hell proprietor?

  2. “On the other hand, really, Trump is probably just saying here that it’s not a matter for the federal government to get involved at all.”

    Monster.

  3. Scott Shackelford, demonstrating once again why he is the King of Alt-Text.

    1. Walker gives him a run for his money. Also, he needs to learn how to air dry, you know, for the environment. Sure, you get some stares, but it is well worth it. For the earth.

      1. Ed dropped some quality work yesterday with the “cruising” remark

  4. I am going to be completely honest here and point out that I have no idea what the NC bathroom regulations are. I know that some people appear to have strong opinions about them, and that it seems to have created some to-do among some subset of residents of this country, but I count myself fortunate to be in the blessed minority that know little to nothing about this.

    Note that I am not requesting that anyone explain the situation to me, because I am plenty upset about other important goings on in this world, and don’t need to be exposed to any other possibly perturbing controversies.

    1. Short order substance: (Join us in the mire)

      “State passes law; law infringes on the “public accommodation” of certain individuals with an assumptive disorder; individuals with an assumptive disorder declare right to have bathroom of their choice which had been, up and until this “debate,” a non-policed and entirely courteous social phenomenon of the modern age (girls and women being exposed to sweaty men in the bathroom is the main thrust of the opposition); nation gets involved; assumptive disorder tolerance directive from the Dept. Of Ed.”

      1. Yeah, considering Reason’s repeated and rather deliberate mis-statements conflating the State law with the City of Charlotte’s law I remain unconvinced about any and all assertions regarding rocks that may or may not be rattling around under Trump’s hair.

  5. I mean, if you honestly expected Trump to remember his opinion from a whole three months ago you haven’t been watching this election. His views on any issue at any time are pretty much shooting from the hip.

    1. Entirely this.

  6. It’s Donald Trump; nothing he says has to make any sense. If you want clarity, read Two Corinthians or Article XII of the Constitution.

    1. On the other hand, this is a fight over which bathroom various types of trannies can use. Nothing said about it will make much sense.

      1. Again, not to mention considering that Reason has consistently referred to the bill that explicitly frees employers to do as they choose and ‘confining’ state-run organizations to, essentially, honor the documents they have on the books as ‘freedom limiting’ and also doesn’t help the situation.

  7. Make America ?\_(?)_/? Again.

    This guy, ?\_(?)_/? , just always cheers me up.

    1. Loughner always cheered me up. Lobster Girl too.

  8. Is this actually a flip-flop? It really sounds like Trump is saying he thinks it’s a bad idea but is with states paving their own paths to hell?

    Maybe I’m not parsing this enough.

  9. That sign: I was just joking with my girlfriend the other day about how bathroom signs will need to have a circle with an array of sexual preference identifiers appended to them.

    Parody is dead.

    1. You have a girlfriend? I always imagined you sitting on a park bench and feeding the pigeons, all while tapping out non-threaded responses on a TRS-80 computer. A cup of cold coffee sits nearby while the stench of a burning cigar keeps the children away.

      1. How does one power a TRS-80 from a park bench? Also, I think it would be a bit heavy to use it laptop-style.

        1. You plug it into a squirrel. Duh.

          It’s like you don’t even know how to science.

          1. Squirrels are alternating or direct current?

            1. DC, but you can use a chipmunk as a converter.

              1. But only female to male or male to female. Otherwise bad things happen.

        2. The same way you power an electric Trabant.

          A very long extension cord.

        3. Also, I think it would be a bit heavy to use it laptop-style.

          Maybe it’s a TRS-80 4P.

      2. No one wants children around you when you’re on a park bench, that would just be weird.

  10. The Department of Justice has asked a federal judge this week to suspend the implementation of the law while the government fights it with the claim it’s violating the civil rights of LGBT citizens.

    An interesting use of the federal law enforcement apparatus, considering that there are no federal protected class privileges based on gender, up to and including the sex-segregated bathrooms in the DoJ buildings in DC.

    1. considering that there are no federal protected class privileges based on gender

      Oh, but there are. Granted, not one single solitary statute gives protected class privileges based on gender.

      But the agencies don’t need no stinking statutory authority, and have already started imposing “protected class” regulations based on gender.

      There are already labor regs that do this, and CMS is getting into the act as well.

  11. Trump aside, isn’t the media obsession with politicians “flip flops” completely retarded? Why is changing your mind always and forever a bad thing? I get it that it that at some point if you do it enough it can call your integrity and credibility into question. But the total obsession the media has with catching politicians changing their position as some kind of gotcha is really not good for the country and pretty stupid. The media message is that every politician needs to pick a set of team approved positions and then never reconsider or change them for any reason lest they be guilty of the dreaded “flip flop”

    I am sorry but that is retarded.

    1. It’s a pretty selective obsession anyway. Rob Portman didn’t exactly catch a lot of flack for “flip-flopping” on gay marriage when his son came out – that was a touching human interest story about how love conquers hate and bigotry. Newt Gingrich didn’t catch any flack for shooting an ad with Nancy Pelosi for climate change – that was a story about how even the most benighted troglodyte can be made to see the eternally shining truth of Science. John McCain was a straight-shooting “Maverick” for “crossing the aisle” to co-write unconstitutional campaign finance reform laws. Etc.

      1. One man’s flip flop is the next man’s “come to Jesus moment”. More than anything it is an easy way for a journalist to write something without having to know much. And since journalists never know much of anything, the flip flop story appeals to them.

    2. Retarded, perhaps, but a flip-flop did cost Rubio (and for that matter Team Red) a shot at the Presidency, and the focus on that flip-flop had little to do with media obsessions.

      1. No. it wasn’t the flip flop that cost him the nomination. It was the fact that he tried to sell out the party first chance he got and then when it didn’t work tried to claim he didn’t really mean it. There is a difference between changing your mind and selling out and then trying to come back after the deal goes bad.

    3. At the core, it depends what the flip flop is and why it came about it. The first is knowable, the second is not.

      If a politician flip flops on a major issue, like going to war with China, then you might want to know why such a flip flop happened. But, since most politicians never really give much in the way of why it’s always hard to judge if it’s a meaningful flip flop or if it’s the result of more data changing their minds.

      This leaves it wide open for partisan interpretation, but it could be at least mitigated if the person doing the flip flopping explains the why portion that’s normally ignored. It’s also easy to sell constant flip flopping as being a major sign of weakness since you don’t even know your own opinion on major political issues. That’s kind of important for someone in politics.

  12. I always imagined you sitting on a park bench and feeding the pigeons

    Feeding them strychnine, maybe.

    [insert Tom Lehrer link]

    1. Notice, he didn’t deny the park bench or the TRS 80 part.

  13. I am waiting for the time when we have non-id Id’s. You get a drivers licence or passport and there is nothing on it. That way if that morning you feel like being a girl then you are, if in the afternoon you feel like being a guy then you are, and in the evening you can think you are Napoleon, Emperor of France then you are.

  14. My question is, which NC bathroom regs?

    The ones that say localities can’t impose requirements on private businesses?

    The ones that say government buildings will accommodate trannies provided they’ve got their birth certificate amended?

    The (proposed) ones that say government buildings will accommodate trannies provided they’ve got a special tranny certification card?

    And, as a libertarian, is there any reason at all I support the DOJ and the federal courts sticking their snouts in to this issue in order to force the state (and private businesses) to extend special privileges to trannies?

    1. My question is, which NC bathroom regs?

      All of them. Of course. Don’t be a loser. Sad.

      1. Yeah, all I hear is R C Dean setting up for his next big flip-flop.

    2. And, as a libertarian, is there any reason at all I support the DOJ and the federal courts sticking their snouts in to this issue in order to force the state (and private businesses) to extend special privileges to trannies?

      But the Republicans are being mean!

  15. Sorry, I think the gender inclusive symbol looks freakish. Where do I report for my re-education?

    1. Don’t worry, as is tradition, the reeducation squads have you slotted for the convenient time of 3:47 AM EST for pickup.

      Discharge TBD

    2. Where do I report for my re-education?

      Youporn.

      1. I don’t know if I’m that sorry

    3. It’s inclusive of Prince.

  16. But will these bathrooms have… Menstrual Justice?!?

    1. Does rectal bleeding count in the context of transgender bathroom rules?

      1. You can always use more lube.

    2. (insert appropriate supportive GIF + story about how i once had period and people noticed, was ashamed, and now blame society)

      1. [complaint about white jeans]

    3. I clicked and hated myself for it.

      1. We’re you also a little disappointed that it the link wasn’t about the adventures of a superhero known as Tampon Man?

    4. NOT clicking that, no sir, Crusty got me the other day on one.

    5. Some bedouin who wandered into an Austrian aquatic center raped a 10yo boy. That he hadn’t had a discharge in 4 months was his defense and the court partially bought it, giving him a reduced sentence. More justice!

      1. Well, there weren’t any camels handy, so what was he supposed to do?

  17. The state, they know what’s going on, they see what’s happening and generally speaking I’m with the state on things like this.

    That (particularly taken out of context, but still) may be the scariest sentence I’ve heard Trump utter so far.

  18. I cannot bring myself to care about North Carolina’s transgender bathroom laws. And I’m annoyed by those who think they are important.

  19. How does one power a TRS-80 from a park bench?

    Have you never heard of photovoltaics?

    1. I was going to guess whale oil.

    2. Orphan running in a giant hamster wheel.

  20. What’s wrong with flip-flopping? I changed my mind and FU if you don’t like it.

    But we’re talking about a politician here. The more appropriate term is duplicity. He says this to one audience and that to another.

    1. What’s wrong with flip-flopping? I changed my mind and FU if you don’t like it.

      I’m not sure what a genre of Han Dynasty-era Chinese poetry has to do with anything, but whatever.

      1. Do I have to show that to my wife so she can translate it for me, HM? You’re asking a lot, if so.

  21. This one just boggles me. If you look like a girl an you go in the girls bathroom, nobody cares if you got girl parts or not, you look like you belong. If you look like a boy an go in the girls bathroom, then you’ll get shit whether or not you have girl parts because “teh evil rape culture and toxic masculinity!>!”. Nobody gives a shit about who uses the boys bathroom. (I use them all the time when the line to the ladies is too long–they have stalls yanno) Making laws on this subject means we will have given cops another bullshit reason to do strip searches. Fuck that.

    1. If you don’t think that there should be laws regulating bathroom use, then you are gayer than sucking 38 cocks.

      In a row.

      You don’t want to suck 38 cocks in a row now, do you?

      1. You had to light the crusty signal…

      2. I like sucking cocks, but 38 in a row might cause some jaw issues and possibly a sprained neck. And for me to be gay, I’d have to like eating at the Y instead of sucking cocks.

        1. Work with me here, Grandma.

          1. You want a blow job? Okay, but ya gotta wear a glove ’cause I don’t know where HM’s Mr Happy has been. You probably want a beer too.

            1. I don’t know where HM’s Mr Happy has been

              I do. Triple wrap.

              1. Duly noted.

    2. If you look like a boy an go in the girls bathroom, then you’ll get shit whether or not you have girl parts because “teh evil rape culture and toxic masculinity!>!”.

      There is an important exception to this rule. If you have a child of about 3yo in tow you can use whatever toilet is open. At this time the child is past diapers but does not know how to hold it. Just about everyone understands this. Imagine the volumes of legislation that would have to written to make this exception fully lawful or the mess it would cause should it not be.

      1. Yes the emergency potty run will always be an exemption because the answer to the question,”Can you hold it?” is always no.

        1. “In about 30 seconds, I’m gonna be holding it in my hand.”

      2. There is an important exception to this rule. If you have a child of about 3yo in tow you can use whatever toilet is open.

        I don’t know everywhere you take your children but I still think you’re overstating the importance of this law/exception or the complexity of the solution.

        From the time they were able to use the toilet on, my boys have effectively been groomed on the notion that, while the preferred gender bathroom assignment is obviously preferred, lacking that; signs shouldn’t prevent you from getting the job done. After you’ve verbally declared intentions and received no (adverse) response, the facilities are available. Taking turns as lookouts is a right of passage and no one has ever hassled us when we need to employ said tactics.

        1. Right. I was trying just point out how absurd it would be to fully qualify what bathroom to use by laws.

        2. From the time they were able to use the toilet on, my boys have effectively been groomed on the notion that, while the preferred gender bathroom assignment is obviously preferred, lacking that; signs shouldn’t prevent you from getting the job done. After you’ve verbally declared intentions and received no (adverse) response, the facilities are available. Taking turns as lookouts is a right of passage and no one has ever hassled us when we need to employ said tactics.

          Everything is perfectly reasonable and I agree completely with your well-stated, well-thought and reasoned argument.

          Things can change, however, when your “boy” has a five O’clock shadow and wanders into the wrong womens’ room. And it’s not because I care that your boy is in there, but there’s a reasonable chance one of the women inside may care, and call security/building management/dial 911 on his ass.

          If parents can be hauled off for letting their kids walk to the park, you think the same panicky public is going to give your 200lb, 6’4″ son a pass when he shoots past three women putting on makeup on his way to an empty stall?

  22. government fights it with the claim it’s violating the civil rights of LGBT citizens.

    If we get all pedantic up in here and demand that the letters mean things, wouldn’t it be potentially violating the rights of ‘T’ citizens?

    1. I just hope somebody brings a lawsuit claiming that women have the right to a same-sex bathroom, and that laws requiring businesses and governments to allow men to use their bathroom are a violation of women’s civil rights.

      Not that it matters what the actual laws say anymore, but that lawsuit could at least point to a law outlawing sex discrimination. The transgender lawsuit demanding access to the other bathroom can’t point to any laws.

  23. I believe there’s a similar initiative here in Washington and I heard one of the initiative authors say, on record, that no one believed that fake trannies were going into the wrong bathrooms and terrorizing the churrins. She said, “People have been doing this for years, and there’s no evidence there’s been a problem, all we’re trying to do is make sure businesses are free to set their own policies”.

    I think these sorts of preemptive laws are borne out of the fear that the federal government will create a new “Title IX” for bathroom use– considering the Obama administration accidentally declared all school bathrooms unisex by executive fiat.

  24. This is a case where we need Cathy Young to deplore how both sides neglect the real issue.

    Who gets to use which government-operated bathroom is obviously Very Important.

    But that’s hardly the only issue.

    There’s also the question of whether a private business should decide for itself what policies it should have regarding LGBLT customers, or whether municipalities (Charlotte and potentially others) should subject businesses to fines and lawsuits for “anti-gay discrimination” or “anti-trans discrimination.”

    The North Carolina legislature said this should be up to businesses, not local city councils.

    Reason’s stance on this issue is obscured by so many “yes buts” and “to be sures” that it’s almost as if they don’t want to clearly and unambiguously support the right of businesses to engage in behavior that Reason finds icky.

    1. customers *or employees* – who gets to make policies about the LGBLTs, individual business owners or the good folks down at City Hall?

      1. “but we already lost the battle when Lester Maddox was forced to admit blacks to his Pickrick Restaurant back in the 1960s, so therefore it’s OK to add more and more categories to the list of Protected Classes! No discrimination based on sexual orientation! Or gender identity! Or body odor! Or which sports team you root for! In fact, let’s just have a clerk at City Hall process the employment applications of everyone who wants a job in the city, and ascertain which business must hire which employee! I mean, we’ve already conceded the principle!”

        /derp

        1. Stop talking to yourself.

              1. I’m not touching you!

    2. This. Trump comes down in favor of property rights andfederalism and this is bad. Because flip flop or something.

      No one blames the deliberate obfuscation of the issue for his initial confusion.

  25. I don’t know what side of the North Carolina transgender bathroom issue Trump was on before, and I don’t know what side of the North Carolina transgender bathroom issue Trump is on now–and I’m more interested in politics than the average person.

    I guess the North Carolina transgender bathroom issue is way down on my list of priorities–like it is with most people.

    My guess is that both sides of the North Carolina transgender bathroom issue are excited about it for reasons that have little to do with the issue itself. It’s mostly a signaling thing–like with the Terry Schaivo issue. Social conservatives vs. liberated baby boomers!?

    Less than fascinating.

    Whether legal euthanasia is appropriate and why is a very important issue–especially to high school students who are learning to write term papers. By the time you get to college, they tell you not to write about that shit anymore. I guess I see the transgender bathroom issue in North Carolina that way. If Trump flip flopped on the Terry Schaivo issue, I’d wonder why anyone cared, even if I thought euthanasia was an interesting topic. Why would it matter what Trump thinks about that issue?

    Why does it matter what Trump thinks about transgender bathrooms?

    This is all about signaling, isn’t it.

  26. Male, female, & Nabisco?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.