The Charlotte Transgender Bathroom Debate: Why I'm Against "Equal Access"

Recently, a heated discussion took place at the Charlotte City Council.  Up for debate was whether or not the city should grant rights to individuals within the transgender community to have equal access to the public restroom of their preference.

The Issue:

It is argued that "transgender" is a protected "class" of people, and that as such, they should have the same civil rights as everybody else, and that the government and society should not be allowed to discriminate against the people who make up this community.  Thus, under the law, they should be allowed equal access to everything that everybody else gets to access.  This includes places like public restrooms, and in particular, whether or not transgender individuals should be allowed to use the restroom of the gender that they identify with, regardless of their actual sex.

For those of you who may not know, the transgender community is made up of men and women, who feel that they are actually a different gender than the sex they were born.  Thus, even though biologically they were born as a male, internally, they identify themselves as actually being a woman, and vice versa.  

It is argued that as such, that somebody who is transgender should have access to the bathroom of their choice, and the failure to allow them equal access to both male and female bathrooms is a form of civil rights discrimination.  Forcing them to go to a bathroom other than the gender they personally identify with is viewed as fundamentally no different than having bathrooms designated for "blacks only."  

The Typical Argument Against: Sexual Predators

Needless to say, there are quite a few people in Charlotte who are upset about this policy discussion.  Some people argue that allowing transgenders to access the bathroom of their choice will also pave the way to sexual predators (or simply bored teenagers looking to get a rouse) pretending to be transgender, to start hanging out in the bathrooms of their choice, and causing all sorts of "problems."

Arguments like this aren't entirely without merit.  Whether we want to admit it or not, there are some rather perverted things that already happen in public bathrooms.  If you have been an adult long enough, you've probably lived long enough to "hear" (or hear about) sexual activity that takes place in public restrooms.  

Such activity is so frequent, for example, that in the main library in uptown Charlotte, the men's public restrooms have bathroom stall doors that have had the top halves cut off so as to discourage such sexual activity, among other things.  So, while such fear based arguments may be deemed irrational by some, in the real world, we recognize that a lot of awful things go on in public restrooms.  Thus, such fears are not without legitimate merit.

Unfortunately, such "reasonable" arguments will never win the light of day.  And here's why:

Simply put, your "fears" of what awful things might happen in public restrooms will never trump the "feelings" of those who feel "hurt" over such "discriminatory" policies and "civil rights violations."  It will further be argued, your fears are no different than the whites who were afraid of what awful things might happen if whites and blacks had to share the same bathroom or water fountain.  It will be further argued that "perverts" already hang out in public restrooms as it is, and that refusing transgenders access to your restroom will not change this fact.  And ultimately, at the end of the day, you just need to grow up and get over your fears, as your fears don't trump others rights.

And such is a somewhat reasonable argument.  But I don't by it...

My 3 Arguments Against "Equal Access":

In light of such a weighty argument for those who are for this type of policy, I believe we need a stronger counter argument than the typical "fear" driven argument that people put forward.  

My arguments against "equal access" are as follows:

1. In granting people who identify themselves as transgender access to the bathroom of another sex, such a public policy actually has the effect of creating "reverse discrimination."  For in it, you are granting somebody access to a bathroom that I do not have the right to use simply because I don't identify myself as a transgender individual.  And as such, you are in fact discriminating against me on the basis of my sex and gender identity (or lack thereof).  
2. Public restrooms are not an issue of "gender," but of "sex."  As the transgender community regularly says, there is a difference between one's "gender" and one's "sex."  One's "sex," it is said, is what you are born with biologically.  It's the issue of whether or not you have a penis or vagina.  One's "gender," on the other hand, is a socially constructed "identity."  Therefore, some transgender individuals have their sex "reassigned" by surgical means, so that their "sex" now agrees with their "gender" identity.  Therefore, no "equal access" law needs to be created, because transgender individuals still have the option of using the public restroom available to their respected sex.
3. Finally, an argument that slides down the proverbial "slippery slope." If we allow transgender individuals to go to the restroom of their preference, then what about public locker rooms at your local gym?  Should a man who identifies himself as a woman be allowed to use the woman's locker room and take a shower in there, simply because that is the gender they identify with?  If we allow transgender individuals to access the bathroom of their preference, why shouldn't they be allowed to access the shower of their preference?

What about "family restrooms"?:

Some people have suggested that we need to strike up a happy medium, and make public restrooms that are "gender neutral," such as the "family restrooms" that various public facilities make use of. This idea, while not a bad one, at the end of the day won't stand-up to any sort of legal challenges.  It could be argued that forcing somebody who is transgender to go to a "family restroom" if they wish to go one of their preference, would actually be a form of discrimination, and is the equivalent of having a "blacks only" restroom or water fountain.

The only solution:

Having said all of this, I see that there are only two solutions for the city of Charlotte:

1. Make all public restrooms gender/sex neutral, as they do in some parts of Europe.  
2. Allow public restrooms to purposefully be places of discrimination on the basis of sex, since there is no actual negative impact on anybody for using either bathroom.

Personally speaking, I am perfectly happy to have bathrooms that continue to discriminate on the basis of sex.  As a guy, I like having restrooms with shorter lines in airports and in stadiums, all thanks to my God-given ability to pee while standing up, and thus, occupying less space because men's rooms are equipped with the "technological wonder" that is the urinal.  Arguably, such makes restrooms as we have much more efficient places, and benefits the common good.

Secondly, requiring all restrooms become gender neutral would require a massive overhaul of all current restroom facilities, and would be a very expensive ordeal to undertake, and simply not practical.  Such could be financially crippling to some private business owners, who cannot afford to redesign their public restrooms.

So... that's my opinion.  What's yours?

Give less to God, more to Others

God doesn't need your money.

People need money.

God can't accept your money.

People who are poor can accept your money.

With these truths being rather self-evident, maybe we should strive to give less to God, and give more to others.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't give money to the local church or world missions, and to help financially support the work that goes into preaching of the Gospel.

Such is entirely Biblical.

I just think we should give more money to those who specifically need it than those that don't.

Such is simply MORE Biblical.

Blindly writing a check every week and putting it in the offering plate and saying you gave to God as a result... not so much.

Some ministers might object to such statements, and insist that you have (or get to!) tithe 10% of your income to the local church. It is there, they say, that God has setup His storehouse in which you are to bring your tithe.

Many preach this really well, but frankly, it's simply not Biblical. And there is nothing in the writings of the New Testament to support the notion that God accepts your tithe by means of a pastor at a church building.

Indeed, the early church didn't even meet in buildings, they met in public outdoor places and in living rooms. So the concept was far from their minds.  The only "house of God" they knew about was the temple in Jerusalem, and they knew that Jesus promised it would be soon be destroyed.  So, it's doubtful that they ever brought very much money there knowing such a thing.

No matter.  Such still won't keep very many pastors from trying to come up with clever ways to link the Old Testament practice of tithing to the New Testament, and induce you to give to them as a result.

As some pastors told me in Bible college and Seminary, whether tithing is required today doesn't matter, they were still going to preach it anyway, because without doing so, many of them were convinced that their doors on their church would close tomorrow, and they would be without a job.

(That was a true story by the way.)   

In case you are not aware:

The "storehouse" of the Old Testament to which people brought their tithes was something akin to a barn and used to store food. When people tithed, they brought livestock and other food stuff there.  It was like a giant community food pantry. They didn't bring money. If they had money, it was to be used to purchase food, and that food was subsequently stored and eaten.

Tithing was primarily a practical means by which God made sure the Levitical priesthood and their families, in exchange for their full-time service in the temple, could have something to eat. For the priesthood and their family were engaged in the service of the temple all day long, and they simply didn't have time to milk cows and plant a garden.

Additionally, because they didn't inherit any land in Israel, they literally had little to no land from which they could cultivate, farm, and support themselves with. All they received from Moses when he divided the land were a couple cities that were designated for the Levites to live in. Without the tithe, they would have literally starved, and they would have been forced to abandon their priestly duties in the temple.

This isn't a problem anymore today, because...

We have no more Levitical priesthood to support anymore.

With the giving of the New Covenant, all of God's people are now priests, and all are called to minister in some fashion. And while it is true that pastors and others have the right to be compensated for their service to God's people, if you read the New Testament carefully, you'll find that folks like the apostle Paul rarely accepted financial assistance in compensation for their ministry.

Instead, the apostle Paul worked, and was self-employed in the leather trade. And he specifically encouraged others to follow his example, as he thought it was the wisest thing to do.  He didn't want people to question his motives for preaching the Gospel, and create a stumbling block for others in the process.  Additionally, he wanted the money that might have normally gone to him, had he demanded it, to go towards the meeting of other more pressing needs than his own.

If you actually study all of the passages that talk about giving in the New Testament (and there are quite a few!), you'll discover that the early church primarily gave their money to feed the hungry, take care of the poor, and to support widows. Very little money seems to have ever been given or received for the purpose of helping pay preachers for their labor.

And NONE of it was ever given to help build auditoriums or cathedrals.

And the church still grew like wildfire in spite of not funding the things we typically spend a lot of money on, and did so for several centuries.  Which leads me to ask...

What would happen if we followed the teaching and pattern of giving practiced in the New Testament by the early church?

Just imagine all the places we live and how our cities and nations would be transformed overnight, if instead of "giving to God," we simply made it an intentional point to be radical in our giving, and looked to give our money directly to the people who actually need it the most.  And in the process, share the Gospel with them.

Can you imagine the witness this would bear for Christ in the community? Can you imagine the platform the church would gain in order to proclaim the Gospel if it had little overhead, and majored in giving?

Let's think outside the box for another moment.

I go to Elevation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. As of December 2013, we received over 25 million dollars in offerings last year according to this audited online financial report from the church.  The church, which is very generous, gave back 12% of that money to the surrounding community.  Not too shabby compared to most other churches.

But, imagine a scenario, that, if instead of using the money we received to support the hundreds of pastors and staff who work at Elevation, and to pay for all the overhead associated with this ministry, that we simply decided as a church to pool all of our money together to end homelessness in Charlotte.

We could do so every year, starting this year!

Impossible you say? Check this out...

According to this report at the Charlotte Observer, as of December 2013, there were 2,418 homeless people in Charlotte. If we took the same 25 million dollars we received last year, and used it to help each of these homeless people obtain an apartment, that means we could give each person every year $10,339.12 (or $861.58 per month), to go towards paying for rent somewhere. For those not from this area, at $861.58 a month, you could easily find a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment to live at in the greater Charlotte area, and possibly have some money left over.

Now, imagine if my church did that. And then imagine if they partnered with other large churches in the area, like Calvary Church, Mecklenburg Community Church, Central Church of God, Forest Hill, Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, and the dozens of other very large mega churches in our community.

Each of these large churches bring in millions upon millions of dollars every year in tithes and offerings. Collectively, I would speculate that all of the mega churches in Charlotte probably bring in well over 100 million dollars annually.

Just think of all the good works the church could engage in across our community if we collectively partnered together to meet real and pressing needs.

Think of the opportunity it would create for all of us to openly share our faith with people who have been made ready by God to hear what we have to say.

Instead, the trend these days is for us to operate under the assumption that God has called our church to be a big church, with as many venues in as many cities and states as possible, so people can gather together and hear 1 or 2 people dynamic people preach for a couple hours a week, listen to some music, watch some theatrics, and then go home.

And as more and more churches expand their sphere of influence by opening multiple satellite locations, we are literally spending millions of dollars on buildings that just allow people to watch somebody preach the gospel over a jumbo sized TV screen that simply has a live internet feed attached to it.  Truth is, the people could do the same at home in their pajamas at just about any time of the day, and the church could spend a lot less money on overhead in the process.  Last I checked, putting up video's on YouTube was free.

That's not exactly a visionary way to reach people. That's probably just bad stewardship.

There are better ways of reaching out to people and changing the world for Jesus. What is needed is not for a church to pump and prime God's people to tithe and give more and more, so that we can build more and more buildings.  God's people give plenty already.  We already have plenty of buildings.

What is needed is for us to adjust our vision, and to be aware of the opportunity that is all around us. We need to redirect where we give our money.

We need to see the single mom who is having a hard time making ends meet, and give to her.

We need to see the children in our nation who experience hunger on a regular basis, and buy them something to eat.

We need to see neighbor that we know was recently laid off from work, and help him make ends meet for his family.

We need to see the wife, who stays with her abusive husband only because she has nowhere else to go and find safety, and help provide a place of refuge for her to flee too.

We need to see the countless others, whom we often refuse to see, and deliberately make them the recipient of the grace God has given us, so that we can enrich their lives through our joyful and generous giving.

We need to stop being so lazy, and simply dropping our offering in a plate.  We need to reach out of our comfort zones, and really begin to minister as God would have us as the church to minister to those in our community.

We need to give less to God, and more to others.

And in the process, if we find some preachers who are exceptionally gifted and make a regular difference in our life and the lives of others, and help equip a lot of people to do such things, we should consider supporting such men and women. They are worthy of our support... if they will take it.

(Note: I have called out Elevation Church and other churches in the Charlotte area for illustrative purposes only. It's the church I go to. I am not attempting to smear them or otherwise malign them. If you think I'm trying to pick on them, may I kindly advise you to think about something else... like puppies, or whatever else makes you smile.)

You Probably Can't Afford to Tithe

Many pastors have been known to boldly stand in the pulpit and proclaim, "You can't afford not to tithe!"

Many of these pastors have never sat down and tried to make a budget with the people they are preaching to. They've never sat down and done the math.

As I will demonstrate in this brief essay, the average family of 4 making $50,000 a year probably cannot afford to tithe.

The financial assumptions I am making in this essay assumes a family of 4, where the husband is the sole wage earner in the family, and where the wife is a full-time stay at home mother who stays home to take care of the kids. I assume they own 1 car outright, and have an auto loan on another. I assume they have a mortgage that is reflective of 25% of their gross monthly income (which is pretty common). Because it is the law of the land, I am operating under the assumption the household is fully insured. I assume this family has no credit card, student loan, or medical debts. I assume this family is not making any contributions to retirement savings.

Since I personally live and work in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area, I am going to assume taxes and living expenses that are in keeping with a person who lives in the suburbs of my living area. I work as a mortgage underwriter for a living, so some of my assumptions come from being regularly exposed to the personal finances of a lot of people, as well as the general lending standards of most banks. Please feel free to adjust these expenses based on where you live to see if what I say pans out.

Using the PaycheckCity.com calculator, I have determined that a married man living and working in North Carolina making a fixed salary of $50,000 a year will gross $961.54 a week before taxes/social security, and will net $738.58 after. His gross monthly income ($961.54 x 52 / 12) is $4,166.67, and his monthly take home pay is $3,200.51.

Monthly Gross: $4,166.67
Monthly Net: $3,200.51

Itemized expenses:
Tithe 10%: $416.67
Mortgage payment: $1,041.67
Groceries: $850.00
Water Bill: $50.00
Electric Bill: $150.00
Gas bill: $50.00
Home/Cell Phones: $150.00
Clothing: $50.00
Auto Loan: $200.00
Auto Insurance: $100.00
Auto Gas: $100.00
Auto Maintenance (Tires/Oil/Taxes/Inspections): $150
Health/dental/vision insurance: $200.00
Miscellaneous: $100.00
Total monthly expenses: $3,608.34

Monthly budget deficit: -$407.83

Based off these rough, and rather conservative monthly budget figures that I used, I have concluded that the average family of 4 living in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area making $50,000 a year simply cannot afford to tithe. Without their tithe, this family of 4 would be lucky to break even on a monthly basis. They don't even have room for regular monthly savings, let alone money to contribute to a retirement account.

In order to pay their tithe, this family would ultimately be forced to skip out on some other bills in order to make the math work, or they would be forced to radically downsize their current lifestyle... which is already pretty conservative.

So the next time a preacher tells you that you can't afford not to tithe, ask to sit down with them and work out a budget with you, and ask him how this math works. Because as far as I'm concerned, as somebody who crunches numbers for a living, I do not believe that the average family of 4 that is lower middle class and below can actually afford to tithe on a monthly basis, and still stick to their monthly budget. Of course, there may be some exceptions to this, as everybody's scenario is ultimately unique.

How does your monthly budget work? If you can afford to pay your tithes and all of your monthly bills, and are a family of 4 making $50,000 or less a year, I would be interested in you sharing your monthly budget with me and my readers in the comment fields below.

Please, show me the math.