Cutting through the Crap and the mass Hysteria over North Carolina's HB2 Bill and Charlotte's Potty Ordinance!

Recently the North Carolina Governor and legislators passed the controversial "HB2 Bill" (you can read the full bill here).  The bill overturns a recent city ordinance in Charlotte, NC which allowed transgender individuals access to the restroom of their choice on publicly owned property, and made LGBT individuals a special protected class of individuals within the city limits, granting them additional civil rights protections that are not specifically granted to them by the state.

There has been a lot of uproar and anger over this bill.  The legislation is considered so awful, one would think Donald Trump wrote and approved this bill.

The LGBT lobby and Charlotte City Council (with mayor Jennifer Roberts) has whipped up the media into a frenzy over the perceived attack on the LGBT community and their civil rights.  Opposition to the bill has created a lot of made for TV drama, which the media has pounced on with great vigor, as it makes for great ratings and internet click-bait.

Petitions have been circulated in which major corporations CEO's, such as those at Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Facebook, Apple, have signed, expressing their concerns over the HB2 ordinance.  A lot of companies have threatened to take some of their future business elsewhere because of this legislation, which is considered a "step backwards" for LGBT civil rights in the state of North Carolina.  The legislation is considered hurtful, hateful, bigoted, and something that may potentially cripple the economy of North Carolina.

That's a lot of rhetoric to digest.  Now, let's cut through the crap.

Here are some problems I have with the HB2 Legislation, the Charlotte city ordinance. and a lot of the rhetoric/hysteria I see on both sides of the issue:

1) The only possibly negative thing the HB2 legislation actually does is take away the power of local cities in North Carolina to draft their own civil rights ordinances, and makes that as something that can only be done at the state level.  As a conservative leaning individual, I actually find this part of the HB2 bill somewhat troubling, as I believe in the rights of local government to make whatever laws they deem fit.  The city of Charlotte should reserve the right and power to create any ordinance it wishes dictating who can pee where.  Such power shouldn't be stripped away by the bigger state government.  Such an idea is actually anti-conservative, which is ironic considering it was legislation passed by an allegedly conservative leaning Republican government.

2) The LGBT crowd still has all the exact same rights they have always had in North Carolina.  This is simply true, no matter how much somebody may hee-and-haw over the HB2 bill.  LGBT individuals have had the same rights they've always had in North Carolina.  Some might not consider this much, but the truth is, they have the same rights as all their heterosexual neighbors have.  Period. End of story.  Anybody who says otherwise is simply lying.

3) The Charlotte City ordinance actually made transgender individuals a special protected class, giving them "more rights" than their non-transgender neighbors.  Now, this is something that is lost on many.  The city of Charlotte granted transgender individuals the right to use the bathroom of their preferred gender identity.  But in doing this, they were granting some of its citizens rights not afforded to others.  It allows transgender individuals to use the public restroom of their choice, which is not a right afforded to non-transgender individuals. Such is actually reverse discrimination.  If transgender individuals are reserved the right to use the bathroom of their choice, then non-transgender individuals must be afforded the same right.

4) Heterosexuals and the LGBT community were actually in the same discriminatory boat!  Prior to the city ordinance passed by Charlotte, a business could refuse to serve you or let you work at their establishment on the basis of your sexual orientation.  So, if you were gay, and somebody didn't want to do business with you because you were gay, they reserved that right.  You could be fired from your job for being gay.  But likewise, under the law, a business could refuse to do business with you because you were straight!  Under the Charlotte city ordinance, businesses could no longer consider your orientation a factor in their decision to serve you as a customer or employ you as an employee.  However, in saying this, one must realize, the knife cut both ways.  Without the city ordinance, businesses reserve the right to continue to discriminate against those who they do business with on the basis of their sexual orientation, no matter which direction that orientation swings, whether gay or straight.   Now that the ordinance has been struck down, your employer could fire you for being gay... but they could also fire you for being straight. And while it is very unlikely either is to ever happen, it could happen.  North Carolina is an "at will" employment state, meaning an employer can refuse to employ you for just about any reason at all (except over protected issues, like race and religion).  

5) Big corporations are engaging in very selective ethics. In reality, many are moral cowards only looking to make a buck.  A lot of big businesses have come out and voiced their opposition to the ordinance.  They've suddenly become civil rights leaders.  But make no mistake, they are only doing such for two reasons:   One, it's a great PR stunt, in which they get to stand before the cameras as champions of LGBT civil rights.  Second, they are scared to death to not oppose HB2, as the LGBT lobby is quite powerful, and these businesses are afraid of what would happen to their profit margins and stock prices if they were seen as being on the wrong side of a very public and personal policy debate.  In truth, many of these corporations are being hypocrites and moral cowards. Most probably don't care about anybody's civil rights, which is why many corporations such as Apple and Facebook, happily engage in business relationships with countries like China, a nation that is a gross violator of civil liberties of everybody everywhere, and these CEO's gladly turn a blind eye to the plight of the people there... because at the end of the day, they just want to make a buck, and will gladly do business with countries like China, never mind how they actively oppress billions of people.

6) North Carolina's economy isn't going to go belly up anytime soon because of this legislation.  In spite of the Charlotte Observer and Charlotte mayor Jennifer Roberts practically begging businesses to threaten to leave North Carolina over the HB2 bill (they need the leverage), the truth of the matter is that very few will do so.  North Carolina remains the same state the day it was before Charlotte passed it's city ordinance, and it is the same state since the HB2 bill struck it down.  Everybody still has the same rights they've always had.  And the state remains the same attractive place for businesses to do business, which is why it's population and economy has boomed over the last few decades.  Yes, a few businesses may limit their involvement in the economy of North Carolina in very selective ways.  But such will probably only be temporary and short term in nature, and very few dollars will be lost from North Carolina as a result.  For once the issue runs its length through the courts, and the hysterical attitude of some groups dies down in the media, then everything will return to normal, and will be as it was before.  I'd be willing to bet good money that North Carolina's economy continues to grow over the next several years, regardless of what happens around this legislation.  Why?  Because as I pointed out above, most businesses are going to continue to do what is best for their profit margins and stock prices, because they really don't care all that much about civil rights of anybody.  They mostly care about making money, and will engage in whatever activity allows them to make the most.

7) There isn't anything to be afraid of in the bathroom! The city ordinance was unnecessary to begin with, and so is the fear over children being sexually assaulted.  While it seems to be statistically true that transgender individuals might be a little bit safer by using the bathroom of the gender they identify with, such protections as granted under the Charlotte city ordinance are entirely unnecessary.  We already have laws against assault and battery.  It's a crime to attack somebody simply because they dress differently than other people and appear to be in the wrong bathroom... or any other reason. Therefore, transgender individuals are already protected under the law, just like everybody else is, and allowing them to use the bathroom of their choice is not necessary.  Likewise, the hysteria of some groups who worry about women and children being sexually exploited in the bathroom by a pervert is unnecessary, as we also already have laws against such things as well.  And while it may also create a safer environment to keep individuals of the opposite sex out of your bathroom, let's not forget that people are much more likely to be sexually exploited by somebody they know and trust than they are a random stranger in the bathroom.  The fears of both groups simply aren't based in reality, and are far too melodramatic.  and in my opinion, the odds of anybody ever being assaulted for any reason in a public bathroom are so low that no politician should be concerned over the issue from a public policy and safety perspective.  The bathroom just isn't that dangerous of a place, no matter who uses it.

8) There isn't anything in the Bible that says who should pee where!  It may come as a shock to some of my fellow Christians, but there isn't anything in the Bible that says that bathrooms must be gender specific.  So, seriously, simmer down on the rhetoric and the outrage.  It's entirely unnecessary, and you aren't standing up for Jesus by crying out against transgender individuals and which bathroom they should or should not use.  You are actually making Jesus and yourself look bad.  Personally, I think public restrooms should discriminate on the basis of one's personal plumbing, but I believe that such is simply as a matter of common decency and privacy that should be afforded to each gender in using common public restrooms.  And such is simply my personal opinion.  I don't claim it's the opinion of Jesus.

In my final opinion on the matter, if both sides cannot ultimately agree over this issue, then public restrooms need to be made completely gender neutral, with privacy dividers that completely separate each stall, so nobody has to worry about seeing anything they don't want to see or have anybody else see.  It's really very simple.  That way nobody feels discriminated against, and nobody has to worry about their public safety, or in anyway being violated.

Of course, as a guy, that's really going to stink for me, as I enjoy the quick moving lines at sporting events and other venues.  But I would rather have that than the mass hysteria we are seeing in public. This is definitely not an issue worth coming unglued over.  And I would really like to see both sides hash this issue out in a much more respectful way, without employing hateful rhetoric, or threatening economic sanctions against the state of North Carolina.  North Carolina is actually a great place to live, work, and play.  It's a state that is friendly for Christians, transgender individuals, straight people, and homosexuals.

If you think otherwise, something is seriously wrong with your noggin.

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?