North Carolina to Limit Bathroom Use by Birth Gender

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
exnihilo said:
This isn’t really as much of an issue as you make it out. In North Carolina a city can be unincorporated. It can have its charter revoked. So if the General Assembly can make a city not exist it certainly can pass any law it wants to restrict a cities actions. Cities don’t have rights. Their actions are not binding on the rest of the state and its government. Also, there have been plenty of other laws passed to reign in actions of cities, counties, and their officials.
Click to expand...
But JonNC claims that the Charlotte law was illegal from the beginning and that local entities such as cities and counties didn’t have the authority to pass laws protecting LGBT people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender which is a different issue than the one you’re talking about. And many other places (cities and counties) in NC already had such laws which calls into question the notion that such local ordinances were already illegal before the new state law was passed. The state has now passed a law making such local ordinances illegal, but because this law is specifically intended to single out a disfavored group, it will be struck down. Based on its legislative history, the hostile intent of this new law is perfectly clear.
 
_Abyssinia said:
mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/us/north-carolina-to-limit-bathroom-use-by-birth-gender.html?_r=0&referer=
Click to expand...
Well done. A return to sanity. We have open bathroom use in Seattle. Several months ago, an apparent male predator (nontransgender) availed himself of the women’s restroom at a public pool recreational facility - twice. The local community of pool users, especially the women, are now basically on constant watch.
A Seattle, Wash. community is in uproar after a man undressed in the women’s locker room at a local pool, seemingly to test a new rule that allows transgender people to use the bathroom of their gender identity, according to King 5 News.
Click to expand...
An unidentified man wearing board shorts walked into the women’s bathroom of Evans Pool, in the heart of Seattle, on Monday evening.
Click to expand...
The women inside the locker room at the time attempted to kick him out, but the guy refused and said “the law has changed and I have the right to be here.”
Click to expand...
The man was referring to a local rule passed in December that mandates all public restrooms to allow transgender people to use bathroom assigned to their gender identity.
Click to expand...
It’s unclear whether the man who broke into the women’s restroom of the Seattle pool was protesting the rule or just testing its limits.
Click to expand...
He returned to the restroom for a second time later that evening, when young girls were changing for swim practice.
Click to expand...
People who frequent Evans Pool were outraged that the man would take advantage of the new rule, designed to protect the rights of the transgender community.
Click to expand...
“Either identify yourself as a transgender or you’re not and you’re just taking advantage of a loophole,” MaryAnn Sato, who uses the locker room a few times a week, told KING-5 TV.
Click to expand...
“Sort of works against the point they’re trying to make. They’re causing people to feel exposed and vulnerable with the intention of reducing people feeling exposed and vulnerable,” Aldan Shank, a pool regular, said.
Click to expand...
No one was arrested in the case, and police weren’t called.
Click to expand...
nydailynews.com/news/national/wa-man-women-bathroom-test-transgender-ruling-article-1.2535150

My guess is it will take a violent assault or rape of a woman before these laws are subject to public scrutiny. For better or worse, that will probably happen sooner rather than later.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Well done. A return to sanity. We have open bathroom use in Seattle. Several months ago, an apparent male predator (nontransgender) availed himself of the women’s restroom at a public pool recreational facility - twice. The local community of pool users, especially the women, are now basically on constant watch.

nydailynews.com/news/national/wa-man-women-bathroom-test-transgender-ruling-article-1.2535150

My guess is it will take a violent assault or rape of a woman before these laws are subject to public scrutiny. For better or worse, that will probably happen sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, the rape epidemic in Europe hasn’t caused people to rethink immigration policies.
 
Thorolfr said:
But JonNC claims that the Charlotte law was illegal from the beginning and that local entities such as cities and counties didn’t have the authority to pass laws protecting LGBT people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender which is a different issue than the one you’re talking about. And many other places (cities and counties) in NC already had such laws which calls into question the notion that such local ordinances were already illegal before the new state law was passed. The state has now passed a law making such local ordinances illegal, but because this law is specifically intended to single out a disfavored group, it will be struck down. Based on its legislative history, the hostile intent of this new law is perfectly clear.
Click to expand...
It was illegal. The Charlotte city council only has authority granted to it by the state. I am not aware of any other local ordinance that held, for example, that public school girl’s restrooms and locker rooms were open to boys, regardless of the identity claim. And if they were, those laws were in excess of statewide protections granted based on gender, and needed to be struck down.

But, in the final analysis, this isn’t about the ordinance. If it were, the faux protest of this year would have been a real protest last year when the Charlotte city council didn’t pass the ordinance. Simply put, this is a ruse in an election year.

Jon
 
exnihilo said:
If that is the intent of a constitution then it has to be strictly interpreted which it isn’t. If you can stretch it to say anything then it can’t define and limit. I’m no fan of democracy but it is the same courts who proclaim us one, except when they exert their power.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like the Supreme Court just sort of pulls rulings out of the air. The fact is that the Supreme Court is constitutionally empowered with the right to interpret the Constitution. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted as conferring citizens of the States with the same rights as they are afforded at the Federal level, and I’m curious as to why you think citizens shouldn’t have the same Bill of Rights protections against state and local laws that they have against Federal laws.
 
aclausen said:
You make it sound like the Supreme Court just sort of pulls rulings out of the air. The fact is that the Supreme Court is constitutionally empowered with the right to interpret the Constitution. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted as conferring citizens of the States with the same rights as they are afforded at the Federal level, and I’m curious as to why you think citizens shouldn’t have the same Bill of Rights protections against state and local laws that they have against Federal laws.
Click to expand...
Apparently not all of the rights. Little Sisters of the Poor are in jeopardy of having their right to free exercise of religion, a constitutionally enumerated right, struck down, in order to facilitate people getting contraception, not a constitutionally enumerated right.
So, the courts are currently in the practice of neutralizing constitutionally enumerated rights, not extending them to those who may have had them rescinded.

Jon
 
aclausen said:
You make it sound like the Supreme Court just sort of pulls rulings out of the air. The fact is that the Supreme Court is constitutionally empowered with the right to interpret the Constitution. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted as conferring citizens of the States with the same rights as they are afforded at the Federal level, and I’m curious as to why you think citizens shouldn’t have the same Bill of Rights protections against state and local laws that they have against Federal laws.
Click to expand...
Actually, judging the constitutionality of laws is, ironically, an extra constitutional power the courts assumed. As for the 14th I don’t think it was actually ratified. For me appeals to the constitution aren’t really meaningful since they’ve been making things up since the beginning. I have no problems applying the bill of rights to state governments. I do have problems making rights up.
 
Women are the real victims of open bathroom laws. Mens’ bathrooms are much less affected. Laws like this create unsafe, intimidating environments for women. I predict they will fall in time but only after a few violent assaults.

Good for North Carolina.
 
Padres1969 said:
Not surprising. You’re going to see a lot of businesses and organizations choosing to express their dissatisfaction with this bill using their pocketbooks. I’m sure the NBA will pull or threaten to pull the ASG from the state if they haven’t already.
Click to expand...
Plus the Federal government is investigating whether the new law violates the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Amendment which both prohibit gender discrimination. This could result in North Carolina losing millions in Federal funding.
 
Thorolfr said:
Plus the Federal government is investigating whether the new law violates the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Amendment which both prohibit gender discrimination. This could result in North Carolina losing millions in Federal funding.
Click to expand...
I guess Mississippi just passed a similar law to the recently vetoed Georgia bill. And they’re catching flak for it as well.

cnn.com/2016/04/05/us/mississippi-governor-signs-religious-freedom-bill/index.html?iid=EL
 
exnihilo said:
Except that it is his job. His job isn’t to decide what laws to defend and what laws not to defend. His job isn’t to invalidate democracy. He also didn’t defend the marriage amendment. I guess he doesn’t do much in his job other than run for governor.
Click to expand...
Many people posted in these forums that a government employee should have the right to not do all of his or her job if parts of his or her job went against religious beliefs (marriage licences). Shouldn’t that logic apply to the AG also?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Women are the real victims of open bathroom laws. Mens’ bathrooms are much less affected. Laws like this create unsafe, intimidating environments for women. I predict they will fall in time but only after a few violent assaults.

Good for North Carolina.
Click to expand...
How are women’s bathrooms more effected by this? With women’s rooms almost universally containing private stalls, etc… I’d think they’d be much safer overall anyway. I think the bigger danger here is requiring pre and post surgical men who’ve are or have transitioned to women to use men’s rooms. That’s a recipe for something bad to happen when a now apparent woman is forced into using a mens room.

Of course all of this presumes this law is even enforceable, which it’s not.
 
A strange place for a society to be in when men using men’s bathrooms and women using women’s bathrooms is controversial.
 
Padres1969 said:
How are women’s bathrooms more effected by this? With women’s rooms almost universally containing private stalls, etc… I’d think they’d be much safer overall anyway. I think the bigger danger here is requiring pre and post surgical men who’ve are or have transitioned to women to use men’s rooms. That’s a recipe for something bad to happen when a now apparent woman is forced into using a mens room.

Of course all of this presumes this law is even enforceable, which it’s not.
Click to expand...
This is a huge issue at my gym. Washington has an open bathroom law. Men (in varying degrees of transgenderism or claiming to be) now use the women’s restroom. Last December a woman unexpectedly came across a man undressing in the locker room and she ran in her towel out to the front desk. 😃 Actually she was quite upset; it is not really funny.

I have had the same experience recently - same guy. The gym cannot do anything about it because of the open bathroom law. They can only suggest he use a different private unisex bathroom which he refuses to do. This same individual feels uncomfortable in the men’s bathroom - this is quite common with transgender men (men transitioning to women). Likewise, transgender women (women transitioning to men) are uncomfortable in men’s bathrooms too. Which means that women get both most of the time. To be honest, I am extremely uncomfortable now at the gym. Other women feel the same way; I have talked about this with them. The gym manager actually said he would be uncomfortable with women in the men’s locker-room but that his hands are tied. And that he receives multiple complaints.

What is this accomplishing? And I think assaults will occur somewhere at some point. Recently at a public pool restroom in Washington an unidentified man entered twice in one day while girls were changing; it was not clear why he was there. He was not transgender I don’t believe. And there was a verbal altercation when he was asked to leave; he refused. The law states that you cannot ask anyone to leave. Anyone can use whatever bathroom they want to. Regular pool users have also stated that they now feel unsafe.

Bottom line: these open use laws have good intentions, bad results.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
This is a huge issue at my gym. Washington has an open bathroom law. Men (in varying degrees of transgenderism or claiming to be) now use the women’s restroom. Last December a woman unexpectedly came across a man undressing in the locker room and she ran in her towel out to the front desk. 😃 Actually she was quite upset; it is not really funny.

I have had the same experience recently - same guy. The gym cannot do anything about it because of the open bathroom law. They can only suggest he use a different private unisex bathroom which he refuses to do. This same individual feels uncomfortable in the men’s bathroom - this is quite common with transgender men (men transitioning to women). Likewise, transgender women (women transitioning to men) are uncomfortable in men’s bathrooms too. Which means that women get both most of the time. To be honest, I am extremely uncomfortable now at the gym. Other women feel the same way; I have talked about this with them. The gym manager actually said he would be uncomfortable with women in the men’s locker-room but that his hands are tied. And that he receives multiple complaints.

What is this accomplishing? And I think assaults will occur somewhere at some point. Recently at a public pool restroom in Washington an unidentified man entered twice in one day while girls were changing; it was not clear why he was there. He was not transgender I don’t believe. And there was a verbal altercation when he was asked to leave; he refused. The law states that you cannot ask anyone to leave. Anyone can use whatever bathroom they want to. Regular pool users have also stated that they now feel unsafe.

Bottom line: these open use laws have good intentions, bad results.
Click to expand...
Well as someone who has always hated public bathrooms, and even more so gyms that don’t have private changing areas, maybe this will spur some positive change across the board. Eliminate semi-public locker room changing areas, etc… Since neither solution on the table at present is really tenable. Having mid transition men in ladies rooms is not going to work per se as you’ve noted. And having post transition women in mens rooms isn’t a solution either as this law is attempting to force.
 
Padres1969 said:
Well as someone who has always hated public bathrooms, and even more so gyms that don’t have private changing areas, maybe this will spur some positive change across the board. Eliminate semi-public locker room changing areas, etc… Since neither solution on the table at present is really tenable. Having mid transition men in ladies rooms is not going to work per se as you’ve noted. And having post transition women in mens rooms isn’t a solution either as this law is attempting to force.
Click to expand...
Right - with open laws, you can’t monitor who does what. No means to ensure public safety. Why is this an afterthought?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Right - with open laws, you can’t monitor who does what. No means to ensure public safety. Why is this an afterthought?
Click to expand...
Probably because laws like this aren’t actually meant change anything. They’re simply enacted to score political brownie points. Because they certainly aren’t enforceable in most situations. Not unless you’re going to have a monitor at the door of every bathroom asking people to drop trou as they walk in so their sex can be confirmed or if you’re going to ask everyone to walk around with their original birth certificate on their person to be checked as you enter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top