Really short version:
It’s the saddest, most pitiful piece of scared-because-progress-is-coming piece of embarrassing legislature that I think I’ve seen passed in NC in my lifetime, and I’m ashamed that the NC government passed it.
You remember the old advertising jingle “I like calling North Carolina home”? I used to fully believe that, but this bill makes it awfully hard.
None of the arguments *for* the bill make any sense to me.
Women need to be protected from transwomen (born as men, but identify as women) in bathrooms
This one is just redonk. If anything, the evidence suggests that transgender individuals are the *subject* of sexual violence far more often than is the norm, not the perpretrators (see http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html).
I’ve also seen the argument that women shouldn’t have to see “men’s genitals” in their restrooms. This has to have been an argument made by a man, because women know that we have stalls, we shut the doors to those stalls, and we don’t pee in the sinks!
Women need to be protected from straight men who will pretend to be transgendered and crossdress in order to go into the Women’s room and attack women
I don’t see bathrooms as becoming the “go to” place for predators, no matter what law is in place, for a couple reasons:
- In women’s rooms, you’re talking about a stall situation… if the stall door is locked (which you have to do to make the door stay shut), then it’s locked, meaning a predator is going to have a hard time…predating (?).
- If you’re positing a random “he grabs her at the sink” scenario… why the bathroom? Seems like that would be an extremely risky venue for a predator:
- there’s only one way out; and
- there’s no lock to keep more people from coming in, so
- almost anywhere else he could go, it would be easier to randomly grab someone.
- For a man to use a women’s room under the Charlotte ordinance (as written) he would have to “identify as being a woman.” I am imagining that in most women’s rooms, that would mean that we’re going to be looking for some attempt at “girl-dom”: some sense of femininity (whether it’s clothes or bearing or makeup or ….).
I am *guessing* (no research to back this up), that being *manly* is important to sexual predators, as sexual predation is all about _power_ at it’s root (and the sort of people who do this don’t think women are powerful).
So, I would posit that the likelihood of a gender normative man who is a sexual predator *choosing* to play a transgender person so he can slip into a women’s room to commit a crime, when there are about a million other ways to do it that wouldn’t require that… are pretty slim.
Cities shouldn’t be able to pass this sort of law
If you’re going to claim that the law was passed because the State is the only “correct” place for this legislation to live…why? It seems completely random to me to say that the Federal Government is too big and City governments are too small — based on what?
And the result is really silly, as it means that a city cannot, for example, recognize that, for example, its cost of living is higher (and taxes are higher) and raise the minimum wage accordingly. Boo.
Having transgender individuals in the restroom of their choosing will make people uncomfortable.
Ok, I fibbed. This one does make *sense*, in that I understand that this will probably make some people uncomfortable — I am just ok with the idea that there will always be people who are uncomfortable with changes that bring society towards a more inclusive ideal. Whether it’s women getting the vote, blacks being released from slavery, the right of black and white people to marry, or saying that “separate but equal” was not OK, there have been people every step of the way who have been *uncomfortable* with the decision.
And that’s ok. Being in situations that make us uncomfortable is how we grow.