So I read HB2...

[Sliceanddice]

(I can't decide if this is cultural or political so I'm erring on the side of legalese)

I couldn't sleep the other night (grrr roomie keeping the bathroom light on for 45 minutes ) so I decided to actually read the North Carolina law that's been all over the news, HB2.

Now 2/3 of it is basic employment and public accommodation discrimination policy that sine what interested me. It's the first part that actually talks about bathroom access.

Here it is edited to just remove legal definitions otherwise unchanged (I figured we could figure out what a single-sex multiple occupancy bathroom or gender is with out their definition)
Single-Sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities. – Local boards of education shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility that is designated for student use to be designated for and used only by students based on their biological sex.
Accommodations Permitted. – Nothing in this section shall prohibit local boards of education from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing facilities or controlled use of faculty facilities upon a request due to special circumstances, but in no event shall that accommodation result in the local boards of education allowing a student to use a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated under subsection (b) of this section for a sex other than the student's biological sex.
Exceptions. – This section does not apply to persons entering a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated for use by the opposite sex:
(1) For custodial purposes.
(2) For maintenance or inspection purposes.
(3) To render medical assistance.
(4) To accompany a student needing assistance when the assisting individual is an employee or authorized volunteer of the local board of education or the student's parent or authorized caregiver.
(5) To receive assistance in using the facility.
(6) To accompany a person other than a student needing assistance.
(7) That has been temporarily designated for use by that person's biological sex."

I read it and thought wait no... they didn't do that. I reread it. I laugh like an evil super villain.

Why?
Based no how this law is written a mother with a young son can not take him into the woman's restroom or locker roomwith her. She can take him into the men's restroom or locker room to assist him but he can't go into the woman's unless she is going to try and claim he's assisting her. Which means if mom has to pee she either has to leave him outside or break the law. Same for a dad traveling with a young daughter.

I know this isn't how it's intended to be read and applied but I honestly kind of want someone else to read the law realize it's implication and try to apply it that way and see what happens.

Cause I may or may not be evil

[mooncat]

I see what you're saying but it sounds like this only applies to schools. I don't think most parents would have a problem leaving their child outside of the restroom in a school while they (the parent) went inside to use the facilities. Unless the kid is too young to be left alone, but I seriously doubt anyone would charge them with a crime for that, especially as this law was specifically written to coddle so-called "traditional values."

[Sliceanddice]

opps your right i did miss one line, she can in fact bring him into the restroom, he just cant use it. she will still have to take him into the men rest room to use it as the law states he may enter with his guardian but not that he can use said facilities.

but the law basically repeats this part for government and public buildings too in a more abbreviated format due to the length of the first format and its been stated that the bathroom usage restrictions in the law do apply to all schools, even universities, as well as government buildings and public buildings.

Yours probably right, it wont be applied that way, im just saying in my evil mind that it is possible for some activist trying to find a way to get the law thrown out to use such a scenario with the mother not being arrested as proof that the law is not being applied to all citizens equally and was not intended to do so.

btw if you want to read it for yourself http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2...e/PDF/H2v4.pdf have a go

[Canarr]

Okay, I'm just starting to catch up on this issue... seriously, this is stupid.

This article on the Huffpost site makes a good point by comparing this issue to the Segregation discussion in the 1960s:


Ted Cruz warns that women and young girls will be in danger if men who consider themselves female are allowed to use the women’s bathroom. Donald Trump says we can’t waste money building new bathrooms for transgender people, and the decision should be left to the states.


What’s behind all this nonsense? I am old enough to remember a similar fear back in the 1950s. At that time, southern politicians warned that racial desegregation would put white women at risk. If white women, idealized as symbols of purity (even when reality suggested the contrary), came into contact with black men, they warned, rapes would surely follow. Behind much of the resistance to desegregation was sexual panic.


Southern politicians used race-baiting skillfully to divert attention from their corruption and their failure to produce any social or economic gains for the people who elected them. Picking on powerless, disenfranchised blacks kept many a southern politician in power.


The game now is to pick on the last remaining minority that is small in number, mostly hidden, and politically isolated. Who cares about the tiny number of people who are transgender?

I'm still shaking my head over this. That is an important issue today?

Quick question for the Americans here: what happens in the US at large events - concerts, sports games, etc.? When women's bathrooms have long lines, and men's don't? Do women just stand in line until a stall opens up, or do they maybe quickly sneak into the men's room?

[AccountingDrone]

From Huffpost: Ted Cruz warns that women and young girls will be in danger if men who consider themselves female are allowed to use the women’s bathroom. Donald Trump says we can’t waste money building new bathrooms for transgender people, and the decision should be left to the states.

I am NOT worried about transgender m>f in my bathroom, I am TERRIFIED about a man or men who enters with the intent of some form of mayhem. I do not want to be verbally assaulted, physically battered, raped nor moved against my will to a separate location. Though granted there is nothing barring a woman from doing any of the above, and yes a woman can rape another woman with tongue, fingers or objects.

And bluntly put, unless we issue keys to every single female and LOCK the doors to every female gendered bathroom, you can't freaking keep a man out of the ladies room [unless you put in bouncers with a genital check...]

[Canarr]

That's kind of the point: how would you actually verify that the people are entering the bathroom of their birth gender?

And, on the other hand: why would a man planning to enter a woman's bathroom in order to commit sexual assault of any kind bother to dress like a woman at all? How, exactly, is this stupid law supposed to help anyone?

[Dreamstalker]

Quick question for the Americans here: what happens in the US at large events - concerts, sports games, etc.? When women's bathrooms have long lines, and men's don't? Do women just stand in line until a stall opens up, or do they maybe quickly sneak into the men's room?

Generally I think women just stand in line (and if someone has an accident they might try to sue the venue for 'the line was too long you should build more bathrooms').

I'll go into a single-toilet men's room if the women's has a line, is out of order, some idiot locked the door when leaving to be funny, etc. and I know the men's is vacant.

My mom pointed out that generally people in a multi-stall restroom tend to ignore each other anyway.

[munchkinmama]

I (a woman) have gone into men's rooms before even multi stall ones. I just yell inside to see if anyone is in there.

[Aragarthiel]

That's kind of the point: how would you actually verify that the people are entering the bathroom of their birth gender?

That's my question. This law states "biology", so a visual examination would not be enough. And in the case of MTF transitions, a complete (and properly done) vaginoplasty is unmistakable from a "natural" vagina. There's no way to accurately enforce this law short of installing DNA scanners at every bathroom, and even then, there's still a population of people out there who have both male AND female DNA.

[mjr]

So why not just take all designations off of the bathrooms, except the sign "bathroom"?

Just let anyone use whatever bathroom they want. Right? Isn't that what's really wanted here? It'd be nice and equal, right?

[KabeRinnaul]

So why not just take all designations off of the bathrooms, except the sign "bathroom"?

Just let anyone use whatever bathroom they want. Right? Isn't that what's really wanted here? It'd be nice and equal, right?

And then we'll allow dogs and cats to share living arrangements.

Meh, fine by me, but that plan requires a degree of maturity America isn't ready to show just yet. Maybe if every bathroom was single-occupant, we could quit worrying about people seeing genitals from the opposite sex without having to grow up about it.

[Canarr]

So why not just take all designations off of the bathrooms, except the sign "bathroom"?

Just let anyone use whatever bathroom they want. Right? Isn't that what's really wanted here? It'd be nice and equal, right?

Honestly, what would be the problem? Just put the urinals behind an extra door, done. If you're in your own lavatory, is it really important whether the person in the next one is male or female?

[mjr]

Honestly, what would be the problem? Just put the urinals behind an extra door, done. If you're in your own lavatory, is it really important whether the person in the next one is male or female?

Why even put them behind an extra door?

[Canarr]

Well, it's the only place where you're actually at risk of seeing uncovered genitals in a public bathroom. So, keep it separate from the rest of the restroom, no one has a reason to complain.

[mjr]

So, keep it separate

Kinda like things are now? With two different rooms?

If you combine them, but put in a separate door, you're basically doing the same thing, right? Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?