So I read HB2...

[Canarr]

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?

Not exactly like things are now, no. A few improvements:

1. Better logistics for public venues - you won't have long lines at the women's restrooms, and empty stalls at the men's, since both sexes can access the entire number of stalls without having to enter the "wrong" restroom.

2. No more discussions about who can enter what bathroom, since there are only unisex bathrooms - with a separate area for the urinals.

3. No risk of "accidental exposure" to offensive genitals. You want to use a urinal, you do it; otherwise, you just use a stall, and will only see the other users of the facility fully clothed going in or out.

[wolfie]

you just use a stall, and will only see the other users of the facility fully clothed going in or out.

Unless you get a situation like at UBC when I was attending. In Buchannan (building for Faculty of Arts), every second stall in the men's washrooms had its door removed. My understanding was that this was a measure to combat "glory holes", since one party would be exposed. Never mind that it also resulted in people being exposed when their only motive for being in the washroom was to take a dump, and it was a busy time so the stalls with doors were occupied.

[Canarr]

Unless you get a situation like at UBC when I was attending. In Buchannan (building for Faculty of Arts), every second stall in the men's washrooms had its door removed. My understanding was that this was a measure to combat "glory holes", since one party would be exposed. Never mind that it also resulted in people being exposed when their only motive for being in the washroom was to take a dump, and it was a busy time so the stalls with doors were occupied.

Okay, that is... I can't even... huh?

Were "glory holes" really such a widespread phenomena in your college that such a measure was deemed necessary?

[wolfie]

IIRC, nearly every partition between 2 stalls in the men's washrooms in Faculty of Arts buildings had large "patch plates" on them. No "patch plates" in Faculty of Science or Faculty of Applied Science buildings.

[Valinor]

Oh, boy. They're going to the mat.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division) sent a letter to Gov. Pat McCrory in North Carolina, stating that HB2 was in violation of three federal statutes :

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex (as well as race, color, religion, and national origin) in employment.

Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs.

The 2013 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity by recipients of VAWA grant programs. (The non-discrimination requirement applies to all operations of grant recipients, not just the operations funded by the grants themselves.)

North Carolina receives about $4.5 billion in federal funding that is now at risk.

(A side note : I have seen several blogs, Op-Eds, and even news articles online that have stated - incorrectly - that the Department of Justice had found HB2 to be in violation of Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Over the years, I have found that it seems to be a very common misconception that the federal statute, usually referred to simply as "Title IX," which famously prohibited gender discrimination in education, was part of the Civil Rights Act, rather than the later Education Amendments Act.

Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is actually about moving civil rights cases from state to federal courts. It has nothing to do with either gender discrimination or education.)

This week, the North Carolina state government responded by filing a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, asking federal courts to declare that HB2 is in compliance with Title VII and the Violence Against Women Act.

CNN - North Carolina, U.S. square off over transgender rights

The same day, Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated at a press conference that the Department of Justice was initiating a "law enforcement action" regarding HB2 - a federal civil rights lawsuit, seeking a court order that HB2's restroom restriction is "impermissibly discriminatory," and a statewide bar on its enforcement.

She added that they still retained the option of curtailing federal funding to North Carolina as the case proceeds.

C-SPAN - Justice Department Response to North Carolina Lawsuit

Text of Attorney General Loretta Lynch's Remarks at Press Conference Announcing Complaint Against North Carolina to Stop Discrimination Against Transgender Individuals

[s_stabeler]

There's actually a more fundamental issue here- do bathrooms even need to be designated for men and women? i can't see someone who wants (fro example) to peep on women from being discouraged by it being a female-only bathroom, and if you have employees there to enforce people using the right bathroom, the same employees could kick out anyone being a pest.

I'd even go as far as to say that showers could probably be made universal- the only real reason that men and women being naked in front of each other is an issue is the fact it's considered taboo. (that, and most public showers I've seen use shower stalls anyway)- it's the same thing that if someone's being a pervert- or worse- they can be kicked out.

If anything, I'd think that people being a pest in universal bathrooms would be less likely, since if there's someone making a nuisance of themselves, there's usually someone who subverts the Bystander Effect- particularly as they make a bigger and bigger nuisance of themselves.

[wolfie]

Something that occurred to me - lifetime restriction to using the bathroom belonging to the gender assigned at birth doesn't only affect the transgendered.
A few years ago, there was a much-publicized separation of conjoined twins.

Between them, they had 2 legs and 1 set of genitals. The genitals went with the twin they were more "attached" to, and the other twin was "fixed up" as a girl (presumably because it was easier to craft female genitals than male genitals). This person has XY chromosomes, their gender assignment at birth was male, but they've been re-assigned as female. HB-2 would require them to use the boys' bathroom.

I've heard about a rare condition where, due to a hormonal issue, a child appears to be female at birth, but upon reaching puberty it becomes obvious that they're actually male. Would these children be required to use the girls' bathroom? If so, how would the "classic" girls react to someone now known to be male using the girls' bathroom?

What about the intersex (people born with ambiguous genitals)? Some are "corrected" shortly after birth (in some cases, without the knowledge or consent of the parents). What if it turns out they were "corrected" the wrong way?

The stated aims of HB-2 could be met by requiring someone "identifying" as other than their birth gender to have a diagnosis, and have reached a specific point in their transition (not a doctor, but I'd guess having started the "live for X amount of time as the other gender before starting hormone treatments" would be a logical point), before being allowed to use the washroom of the gender they identify with. Someone not having a diagnosis by a doctor wouldn't have a leg to stand on. As it's written, it sounds like the REAL reason is "OMG! We need to punish the freaks".

[s_stabeler]

for the hormonal condition and intersex people, then your question is answered by the fact that ti specifies biological sex- therefore, when it is discovered what physical gender they actually are, they would be required to use the relevant bathroom.

I happen to agree the law is more about punishing transsexual people than fixing an actual problem, though. Possibly because people don't understand that, from what little I know about the topic, a transsexual isn't (for example) a man becoming a woman. it's someone who has always thought of themselves as a woman legally and physically becoming a woman.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

This is tangential, but does anyone have a good article(s) written by transgendered people regarding what their issue being in one bathroom over another is? Like is it mostly a fear of bullying issue? Is it the systemic aspect of it?

I ask that question with the positioning statement, I'm pretty fine with everyone going wherever they need to to relieve themselves.

At the same time, this specific wedge issue has always felt intentionally wedgeish. Like I'd be primarily concerned with employment/health/housing descrimination but that's not what we're talking about. The thing with the bathroom is "men in the women's bathroom" has been a boogeyman for as long as I've been alive. I don't buy the conservative line on this, but I freely acknowledge "men in the women's bathroom" is the card that's being played here which makes me worry that we're going to spend all our time foucsing on that, and employment/health/housing is going to go on its merry way because it's not sensational enough.

I'd also kinda agree upthread, that if we're going to go down this road then maybe "sexed" bathrooms need to go away in general. As a man, I would literally hate that as having sexed bathrooms mean I can actually get in and out of public restrooms in a reasonable amount of time but I admit that is an entirely selfish view on my part. And I think for some women, it is very much considered a safety issue. The problem with that is though, if you succumb to "stranger danger" as worth legislating, you're right back in this quagmire.

[Greenday]

I think the thing that I find most hilarious about this issue is that a good portion of the conservatives who want to separate people based on sex at birth claim the laws will keep predators out of women's bathrooms. But it's the same people who say gun laws won't stop criminals from getting/using guns.

So suddenly laws WILL stop criminals from committing acts of violence?

[TheHuckster]

I think the thing that I find most hilarious about this issue is that a good portion of the conservatives who want to separate people based on sex at birth claim the laws will keep predators out of women's bathrooms. But it's the same people who say gun laws won't stop criminals from getting/using guns.

This was exactly my thoughts about those statements.

I have someone on Facebook who repeatedly just dishes out article after article about some incident where a guy enters a woman's room to assault victims and uses it to support HB2, as if HB2 would prevent all these crimes.

I am tempted to tell him the only way something like that would prevent those crimes is by having someone at the door checking everyone's privates before entering the restroom, but I'm scared his answer is going to be "Well, if that's what it takes to prevent this, then so be it."

[s_stabeler]

it's a bigger issue than it seems at first. The issue is that what bathroom people use is, admittedly, an extremely minor issue. However, it imposes an artificial difference between transgender people and their "new" gender. As soon as the principle is established tat transgender people should be treated differently from others of their "new" gender, you open the door to discrimination. ( after all, if you must use the bathroom of your original gender, what about other situations where men and women are separated, like changing rooms?)

also, though it's admittedly an issue mainly with showers and changing rooms, if women and men need to be separated to avoid women getting harassed- which is the main thrust of arguments in favour of separated bathrooms- considering most transgender people look like their new gender, then isn't that exposing the transgender people to the risk of being harassed themselves?

[wolfie]

I think the thing that I find most hilarious about this issue is that a good portion of the conservatives who want to separate people based on sex at birth claim the laws will keep predators out of women's bathrooms. But it's the same people who say gun laws won't stop criminals from getting/using guns.

So suddenly laws WILL stop criminals from committing acts of violence?

Do you seriously expect logic to work against (social) conservative bigots? They have the Buy-our-line-of-bull on their side, which (Donald) Trumps any argument from the other side. The Holy Book says that the circumference of a circle is 3 times its diameter, so it doesn't matter that mathematicians have determined that Pi is not equal to 3.