CDZ Do we really need laws about what restroom transgender people use?

[GaryDog]

From my perspective the discussion of the NC law totally misses the issue at hand. At this time we have high schools all across this country trying to figure out what to do now that boys are allowed to use girls locker rooms. I don't get it. In most instances you have one biological boy who identifies as a girl and doesn't feel comfortable changing in the boys locker room. So he gets to change in the girls locker room. Now if the 20 girls in the girls locker room feel uncomfortable changing with a male, too bad. One male doesn't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys he doesn't have to, 20 girls don't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys they're forced to.

Can some one tell me how this makes sense?

Can you point to any documentation that indicates the scenario you describe above was indeed the genesis of the law the NC state legislature passed to overrule the Charlotte LGBT non-discrimination ordinance?

I've looked and all I can find says that the bill was passed in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that banned LGBT discrimination. It seems as though if the driving and central issue is as you depict it above, that matter should and could have been addressed in a far more direct and narrow fashion than the broad measure the state passed.

• Why North Carolina Lawmakers Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies
• Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote

According to a non-editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify.​

The bathroom provision sparked the most opposition, with opponents mostly worried about the safety of women and girls in a public bathroom with people who were born male. Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.​

Now that hardly suggests residents had much concern over boys and girls at school. It does read as though it has a lot to do with public restrooms, such as those at malls, theaters, etc. Yet the state law that overturns the Charlotte ordinance applies exclusively to NC state owned facilities. It's not as though any "Tom, Dick or Sally," transgender or not, can (now, before, with or without the Charlotte ordinance) just stroll into a public school and use the restroom, much less the locker rooms. It's also unlikely to find kids strolling about government office buildings.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Charlotte ordinance that the NC state law targets expressly states it does not apply to restrooms, shower facilities, etc.

That notwithstanding, I'm still struggling to see just what the issue is with transgender folks using the facilities they feel most comfortable using.

• Transgender folks:
  • Male converting to female --> Wants to use female facilities: The guy is on his way to becoming a gal. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to females? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
  • Female converting to male --> Wants to use male facilities: The gal is on her way to becoming a guy. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to males? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
• Non-transgender folks pretending to be the other gender for a nefarious/untoward purpose:
  • This could happen before and after either law. Neither law changes that.
  • The Charlotte ordinance allowing flexibility makes sense only when considered/applied to transgender people, not to non-transgender people.
  • The state law that overturned the Charlotte ordinance doesn't apply to non-governmental facilities. If this is going to happen, some place other than a government building, such as a mall, theater, etc. is a far better venue to do it in than is a government facility like offices, schools, etc.

Here's the relevant section of the Charlotte Ordinance:

Strangely, the NC Governor highlighted the bit about restrooms, but didn't encircle the sentence immediately before subsection b1. Are North Carolinians in the main so damned dense that there's reason to think that most of them don't see showers, restrooms, et al as inherently private in nature, even if they exist in a public building?


What seems at the heart of the matter is that Charlotte passed a law prohibiting discrimination, and someone, apparently many ones, want to discriminate against precisely the folks in precisely the ways the Charlotte ordinance prohibited. Those ones clearly have the Governor's ear along with those of the NC legislature. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

Again my issue is not with the NC law, to me it's irrelevant. My issue is with the, I'm hoping, unintended consequences of allowing males into girls locker rooms. The idea that children have no right to privacy in a school locker room just blows my mind.

I've found references to six different states with issues in high school girls locker rooms. Our daughters are basically being used as guinea pigs for some idiots social experiments.

Else where on this forum some one posted a story from the U Toronto where guys in the girls locker room video taped the girls in the shower. Brilliant.

What is it about existing laws in every state that makes it okay to do this?

Admit it, the laws are spurned on by nothing more than animus toward gays and lesbians and transgenders. I've also noticed that all of your post's ridiculous hypotheticals are predicated on the assumption that transgender doesn't exist. This was a common tactic of homophobes throughout history. Even today, in Iran, they insist there "are no gays."

Congrats, your thinking is perfectly in line with fundamentalist jihadists.

 

[320 Years of History]

From my perspective the discussion of the NC law totally misses the issue at hand. At this time we have high schools all across this country trying to figure out what to do now that boys are allowed to use girls locker rooms. I don't get it. In most instances you have one biological boy who identifies as a girl and doesn't feel comfortable changing in the boys locker room. So he gets to change in the girls locker room. Now if the 20 girls in the girls locker room feel uncomfortable changing with a male, too bad. One male doesn't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys he doesn't have to, 20 girls don't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys they're forced to.

Can some one tell me how this makes sense?

Can you point to any documentation that indicates the scenario you describe above was indeed the genesis of the law the NC state legislature passed to overrule the Charlotte LGBT non-discrimination ordinance?

I've looked and all I can find says that the bill was passed in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that banned LGBT discrimination. It seems as though if the driving and central issue is as you depict it above, that matter should and could have been addressed in a far more direct and narrow fashion than the broad measure the state passed.

• Why North Carolina Lawmakers Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies
• Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote

According to a non-editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify.​

The bathroom provision sparked the most opposition, with opponents mostly worried about the safety of women and girls in a public bathroom with people who were born male. Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.​

Now that hardly suggests residents had much concern over boys and girls at school. It does read as though it has a lot to do with public restrooms, such as those at malls, theaters, etc. Yet the state law that overturns the Charlotte ordinance applies exclusively to NC state owned facilities. It's not as though any "Tom, Dick or Sally," transgender or not, can (now, before, with or without the Charlotte ordinance) just stroll into a public school and use the restroom, much less the locker rooms. It's also unlikely to find kids strolling about government office buildings.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Charlotte ordinance that the NC state law targets expressly states it does not apply to restrooms, shower facilities, etc.

That notwithstanding, I'm still struggling to see just what the issue is with transgender folks using the facilities they feel most comfortable using.

• Transgender folks:
  • Male converting to female --> Wants to use female facilities: The guy is on his way to becoming a gal. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to females? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
  • Female converting to male --> Wants to use male facilities: The gal is on her way to becoming a guy. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to males? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
• Non-transgender folks pretending to be the other gender for a nefarious/untoward purpose:
  • This could happen before and after either law. Neither law changes that.
  • The Charlotte ordinance allowing flexibility makes sense only when considered/applied to transgender people, not to non-transgender people.
  • The state law that overturned the Charlotte ordinance doesn't apply to non-governmental facilities. If this is going to happen, some place other than a government building, such as a mall, theater, etc. is a far better venue to do it in than is a government facility like offices, schools, etc.

Here's the relevant section of the Charlotte Ordinance:

Strangely, the NC Governor highlighted the bit about restrooms, but didn't encircle the sentence immediately before subsection b1. Are North Carolinians in the main so damned dense that there's reason to think that most of them don't see showers, restrooms, et al as inherently private in nature, even if they exist in a public building?


What seems at the heart of the matter is that Charlotte passed a law prohibiting discrimination, and someone, apparently many ones, want to discriminate against precisely the folks in precisely the ways the Charlotte ordinance prohibited. Those ones clearly have the Governor's ear along with those of the NC legislature. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

Again my issue is not with the NC law, to me it's irrelevant. My issue is with the, I'm hoping, unintended consequences of allowing males into girls locker rooms. The idea that children have no right to privacy in a school locker room just blows my mind.

I've found references to six different states with issues in high school girls locker rooms. Our daughters are basically being used as guinea pigs for some idiots social experiments.

Else where on this forum some one posted a story from the U Toronto where guys in the girls locker room video taped the girls in the shower. Brilliant.

Perhaps you missed that I addressed that aspect as well. See the red text in the quotes above. The unintended consequences of laws about what restroom transgender people use aren't going to do anything to ameliorate the problem that concerns you. Also, why does girls in males locker rooms not concern you?

You asked, "Can some one tell me how this makes sense?" My response shows how your line of argument does not make sense.

Blue:
I apparently missed them. Where are they? What six states? What issues in each?

 

[320 Years of History]

He's expressing a bigoted, hateful opinion. I'm allowed to express mine.

No, it didn't. If he jumped off a bridge, would you do so too? I'm sure you would not, but I could be wrong....

This doesn't even make any sense. My post didn't mirror his. It wasn't hateful or bigoted. For your dumbass observation to be cogent, I'd have to say something along the lines of "I think Marines should have to use different bathrooms than the rest of us."

Are you telling me that you really don't understand that your statements to which I responded mean, "He's expressing a bigoted, hateful opinion. I'm allowed to express [my bigoted, hateful opinion.]"?

It's not the content of your remarks with which I take exception. It's your framing of it as being "bigoted and hateful." I was tacitly requesting that you not weaken/confuse your argument that way.

 

[OldLady]

There is nothing wrong with the law. Well except all the lying by the left.

There is something wrong with a law that says that father can't assist his young daughter with the rest room.

There was more than one occasion when my kids were little that she just had to use the bathroom. I would check the men's room if it was clear and take her to a stall, when she was done I'd recheck it as clear and we'd leave.

That is now illegal.


>>>

Technically. But no one would object to what you described. Most of us have gotten stuck in that situation at least once.

 

[Pop23]

Who is going to check whether one has or has not undergone gender reassignment surgery?

This is the question the NC supporters cant answer. Want to know why? Because their entire proposal is silly and devoid of answers

Just think of all the jobs this will create. Each restroom in the state will need someone to peer down panties and check birth certificates.

Actually that contention had been debunked many times.

The crime, as in most, would be handled after a citizens complaint, an officer would ask for identification, lacking that, do the same kind of investigation as is required to assertain facts.

No big drama here, but some want to make it dramatic

 

[Pop23]

I guess Liberty Market here in Gilbert, Arizona was ahead of its time when a few years ago the grocery store was transformed into a restaurant. Its restroom:

These are excellent. I've desigbed a few facilities like this. Excellent because privacy is assured, not so good when you look at the price tag. We would need to look at Billions of dollars to do this with every public restroom in the country.

 

[320 Years of History]

There is nothing wrong with the law. Well except all the lying by the left.

There is something wrong with a law that says that father can't assist his young daughter with the rest room.

There was more than one occasion when my kids were little that she just had to use the bathroom. I would check the men's room if it was clear and take her to a stall, when she was done I'd recheck it as clear and we'd leave.

That is now illegal.


>>>

Technically. But no one would object to what you described. Most of us have gotten stuck in that situation at least once.

The state law carves out an exception for exactly the scenario WorldWatcher described. (Part I, "§ 143-760, d, 4) The member's remark, "There is something wrong with a law that says that father can't assist his young daughter with the rest room," maybe could have some merit were it so that either law -- Charlotte's or the state's -- to have made illegal parents' assisting their "opposite sex" kids in the restroom, but neither do (did).

I understand WorldWatcher disagrees with the substance of the state law, and I think that's wonderful. I applaud and welcome that. HIs remark, however, strikes me as one's having the "right" position for at least one "wrong/bad" reason. That sort of incongruity in argumentation/stance rarely does an argument good, and often opens the door to derailment when the opposition latch onto it.

Objecting to another's support for a position and objecting to their poor argument for it are two totally different things. Personally, I welcome the former and am unwilling to applaud the latter, even when it's presented in concurrence with my own stance. Acting any other way would compromise my objectivity, and that in turn compromises my integrity. I can't have that, even if costs me another's aid or encouragement.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The state law carves out an exception for exactly the scenario WorldWatcher described. (Part I, "§ 143-760, d, 4) The member's remark, "There is something wrong with a law that says that father can't assist his young daughter with the rest room," maybe could have some merit were it so that either law -- Charlotte's or the state's -- to have made illegal parents' assisting their "opposite sex" kids in the restroom, but neither do (did).

I understand WorldWatcher disagrees with the substance of the state law, and I think that's wonderful. I applaud and welcome that. HIs remark, however, strikes me as one's having the "right" position for at least one "wrong/bad" reason. That sort of incongruity in argumentation/stance rarely does an argument good, and often opens the door to derailment when the opposition latch onto it.

Objecting to another's support for a position and objecting to their poor argument for it are two totally different things. Personally, I welcome the former and am unwilling to applaud the latter, even when it's presented in concurrence with my own stance. Acting any other way would compromise my objectivity, and that in turn compromises my integrity. I can't have that, even if costs me another's aid or encouragement.

1. Regarding para d, 4 - thank you I missed that.

2. As to the bathroom issue, I haven't staked out a position on that. I think reasonable people could have come together and discussed the issued (meaning the City Council, The Legislature, etc...) and devised a reasonable solution.

3. My main problem with the law is two part:

A. The law was passed in "emergency" session in the dead of night. The legislature called itself into session, gave the legislature copies of the bill 5 minutes before the session started, solicited no input on the other side, provided no period for public comment, passed it at night and the governor signed it that night. From the opening of the session at 10:00AM to signing at 10:00PM was 12 hours.

B. The State overriding of Public Accommodation laws enacted at the local level that don't conflict with State law. On other words additional people being included, as opposed to attempt to exclude people covered under State law.​

>>>>

 

[ClosedCaption]

Who is going to check whether one has or has not undergone gender reassignment surgery?

This is the question the NC supporters cant answer. Want to know why? Because their entire proposal is silly and devoid of answers

Just think of all the jobs this will create. Each restroom in the state will need someone to peer down panties and check birth certificates.

Actually that contention had been debunked many times.

The crime, as in most, would be handled after a citizens complaint, an officer would ask for identification, lacking that, do the same kind of investigation as is required to assertain facts.

No big drama here, but some want to make it dramatic

Just to be clear you're saying checking people before going in is dramatic but involving the cops with no crime being broken is level headed reasoning?

What will they complain about? "I think thats a man, would you check for me?"

 

[Ravi]

I wonder how many cops are going to just loooooooooooove that duty!

 

[ClosedCaption]

I wonder how many cops are going to just loooooooooooove that duty!

"So's I reached down this broads pants and....the chick had a freaking Salami between his....her legs. Hahaha what a great day on the job"

Everyone high fives

End scene

 

[Pop23]

Who is going to check whether one has or has not undergone gender reassignment surgery?

This is the question the NC supporters cant answer. Want to know why? Because their entire proposal is silly and devoid of answers

Just think of all the jobs this will create. Each restroom in the state will need someone to peer down panties and check birth certificates.

Actually that contention had been debunked many times.

The crime, as in most, would be handled after a citizens complaint, an officer would ask for identification, lacking that, do the same kind of investigation as is required to assertain facts.

No big drama here, but some want to make it dramatic

Just to be clear you're saying checking people before going in is dramatic but involving the cops with no crime being broken is level headed reasoning?

What will they complain about? "I think thats a man, would you check for me?"

Some need this to be dramatic. There is no drama really. When a citizen witnesses a crime, they report it.

We don't frisk everyone going into a bank because occasionally a ban gets robbed, however, it is appropriate for a citizen to call 911 when they see an individual stuff something that appears to be a gun, into their pocket as they enter a bank.

 

[Pop23]

I wonder how many cops are going to just loooooooooooove that duty!

"So's I reached down this broads pants and....the chick had a freaking Salami between his....her legs. Hahaha what a great day on the job"

Everyone high fives

End scene

You're in the CDZ. If you respect nothing else, respect that

 

[ClosedCaption]

Who is going to check whether one has or has not undergone gender reassignment surgery?

This is the question the NC supporters cant answer. Want to know why? Because their entire proposal is silly and devoid of answers

Just think of all the jobs this will create. Each restroom in the state will need someone to peer down panties and check birth certificates.

Actually that contention had been debunked many times.

The crime, as in most, would be handled after a citizens complaint, an officer would ask for identification, lacking that, do the same kind of investigation as is required to assertain facts.

No big drama here, but some want to make it dramatic

Just to be clear you're saying checking people before going in is dramatic but involving the cops with no crime being broken is level headed reasoning?

What will they complain about? "I think thats a man, would you check for me?"

Some need this to be dramatic. There is no drama really. When a citizen witnesses a crime, they report it.

We don't frisk everyone going into a bank because occasionally a ban gets robbed, however, it is appropriate for a citizen to call 911 when they see an individual stuff something that appears to be a gun, into their pocket as they enter a bank.

Whats the crime again that you want to involve tax dollars in? Peeing on the seat?

 

[320 Years of History]

I guess Liberty Market here in Gilbert, Arizona was ahead of its time when a few years ago the grocery store was transformed into a restaurant. Its restroom:

These are excellent. I've designed a few facilities like this. Excellent because privacy is assured, not so good when you look at the price tag. We would need to look at Billions of dollars to do this with every public restroom in the country.

It is a good idea, albeit a somewhat "posh" approach to the idea.

I don't know how many folks have traveled to the U.K., but if one has, one will find that all, or nearly all, restrooms have "full length" stall doors.

Some are rather utilitarian.

Some, such as those found in gyms, are "nice, but not swanky"

Some are, of course, somewhat upscale.

Some of them, where needed, even go so far as to use bristles to cover the cracks.

And of course, in the U.S. we have some places that have implemented the "full length" idea. The Field Museum in Chicago is one.

You're a designer, so you probably know better than I what the actual cost might be to replace the doors on various types of stalls, but you know too that the cost need not be as high as that for the Arizona restroom solution initially pictured. Will bathroom stall door manufacturers experience a windfall of sorts if all the U.S. "mid-length" doors to be replaced? They sure would.

Sidebar:

Keep up with the news and buy stock in those companies now, sell it once the process is underway. LOL, but not sarcastically so...You'd be amazed at how much simply following social/political trends can produce meaningful boosts to one's financial portfolio. I know I always get a kick out of calling my broker and instructing him to identify companies that do "such and such" and by for me a few positions in that industry to later have it pan out for a tidy gain. Plus the gain are generally "capital" rather than "short term," owing to the slow pace of political action. LOL​

End of sidebar.

All in all, however, I don't think the doors need to be replaced, although doing so doesn't strike me as a bad solution. I mean really...feet are feet...Do folks really "freak out" over whatever feet they see under a stall door? Of those who do, I think they may need to consult a therapist about that. LOL

 

[Pop23]

I wonder how many cops are going to just loooooooooooove that duty!

Probably more then investigating a suicide, rape, murder, fatal car accident, run away child, spousal abuse,

They are well trained in assertaining identity.

 

[Ravi]

This is the question the NC supporters cant answer. Want to know why? Because their entire proposal is silly and devoid of answers

Just think of all the jobs this will create. Each restroom in the state will need someone to peer down panties and check birth certificates.

Actually that contention had been debunked many times.

The crime, as in most, would be handled after a citizens complaint, an officer would ask for identification, lacking that, do the same kind of investigation as is required to assertain facts.

No big drama here, but some want to make it dramatic

Just to be clear you're saying checking people before going in is dramatic but involving the cops with no crime being broken is level headed reasoning?

What will they complain about? "I think thats a man, would you check for me?"

Some need this to be dramatic. There is no drama really. When a citizen witnesses a crime, they report it.

We don't frisk everyone going into a bank because occasionally a ban gets robbed, however, it is appropriate for a citizen to call 911 when they see an individual stuff something that appears to be a gun, into their pocket as they enter a bank.

Whats the crime again that you want to involve tax dollars in? Peeing on the seat?

Apparently it is only a civil crime with no penalty spelled out. This law is all about intimidation.

 

[Pop23]

This is the question the NC supporters cant answer. Want to know why? Because their entire proposal is silly and devoid of answers

Just think of all the jobs this will create. Each restroom in the state will need someone to peer down panties and check birth certificates.

Actually that contention had been debunked many times.

The crime, as in most, would be handled after a citizens complaint, an officer would ask for identification, lacking that, do the same kind of investigation as is required to assertain facts.

No big drama here, but some want to make it dramatic

Just to be clear you're saying checking people before going in is dramatic but involving the cops with no crime being broken is level headed reasoning?

What will they complain about? "I think thats a man, would you check for me?"

Some need this to be dramatic. There is no drama really. When a citizen witnesses a crime, they report it.

We don't frisk everyone going into a bank because occasionally a ban gets robbed, however, it is appropriate for a citizen to call 911 when they see an individual stuff something that appears to be a gun, into their pocket as they enter a bank.

Whats the crime again that you want to involve tax dollars in? Peeing on the seat?

Again with the dramatics. The flame zone would be perfect for you

 

[Pop23]

I guess Liberty Market here in Gilbert, Arizona was ahead of its time when a few years ago the grocery store was transformed into a restaurant. Its restroom:

These are excellent. I've designed a few facilities like this. Excellent because privacy is assured, not so good when you look at the price tag. We would need to look at Billions of dollars to do this with every public restroom in the country.

It is a good idea, albeit a somewhat "posh" approach to the idea.

I don't know how many folks have traveled to the U.K., but if one has, one will find that all, or nearly all, restrooms have "full length" stall doors.

Some are rather utilitarian.

Some, such as those found in gyms, are "nice, but not swanky"

Some are, of course, somewhat upscale.

Some of them, where needed, even go so far as to use bristles to cover the cracks.

And of course, in the U.S. we have some places that have implemented the "full length" idea. The Field Museum in Chicago is one.

You're a designer, so you probably know better than I what the actual cost might be to replace the doors on various types of stalls, but you know too that the cost need not be as high as that for the Arizona restroom solution initially pictured. Will bathroom stall door manufacturers experience a windfall of sorts if all the U.S. "mid-length" doors to be replaced? They sure would.

Sidebar:

Keep up with the news and buy stock in those companies now, sell it once the process is underway. LOL, but not sarcastically so...You'd be amazed at how much simply following social/political trends can produce meaningful boosts to one's financial portfolio. I know I always get a kick out of calling my broker and instructing him to identify companies that do "such and such" and by for me a few positions in that industry to later have it pan out for a tidy gain. Plus the gain are generally "capital" rather than "short term," owing to the slow pace of political action. LOL​

End of sidebar.

All in all, however, I don't think the doors need to be replaced, although doing so doesn't strike me as a bad solution. I mean really...feet are feet...Do folks really "freak out" over whatever feet they see under a stall door? Of those who do, I think they may need to consult a therapist about that. LOL

Retrofit costs would be prohibitive to many businesses.

I do wonder however, how many people have locks on there own bathroom doors in there homes?

Makes you wonder why?

 

[baileyn45]

From my perspective the discussion of the NC law totally misses the issue at hand. At this time we have high schools all across this country trying to figure out what to do now that boys are allowed to use girls locker rooms. I don't get it. In most instances you have one biological boy who identifies as a girl and doesn't feel comfortable changing in the boys locker room. So he gets to change in the girls locker room. Now if the 20 girls in the girls locker room feel uncomfortable changing with a male, too bad. One male doesn't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys he doesn't have to, 20 girls don't feel comfortable in a locker room with boys they're forced to.

Can some one tell me how this makes sense?

Can you point to any documentation that indicates the scenario you describe above was indeed the genesis of the law the NC state legislature passed to overrule the Charlotte LGBT non-discrimination ordinance?

I've looked and all I can find says that the bill was passed in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that banned LGBT discrimination. It seems as though if the driving and central issue is as you depict it above, that matter should and could have been addressed in a far more direct and narrow fashion than the broad measure the state passed.

• Why North Carolina Lawmakers Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies
• Charlotte City Council approves LGBT protections in 7-4 vote

According to a non-editorial in the Charlotte Observer:

The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify.​

The bathroom provision sparked the most opposition, with opponents mostly worried about the safety of women and girls in a public bathroom with people who were born male. Supporters said those fears were overblown, and that transgender people are at risk of violence in the bathroom.​

Now that hardly suggests residents had much concern over boys and girls at school. It does read as though it has a lot to do with public restrooms, such as those at malls, theaters, etc. Yet the state law that overturns the Charlotte ordinance applies exclusively to NC state owned facilities. It's not as though any "Tom, Dick or Sally," transgender or not, can (now, before, with or without the Charlotte ordinance) just stroll into a public school and use the restroom, much less the locker rooms. It's also unlikely to find kids strolling about government office buildings.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the Charlotte ordinance that the NC state law targets expressly states it does not apply to restrooms, shower facilities, etc.

That notwithstanding, I'm still struggling to see just what the issue is with transgender folks using the facilities they feel most comfortable using.

• Transgender folks:
  • Male converting to female --> Wants to use female facilities: The guy is on his way to becoming a gal. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to females? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
  • Female converting to male --> Wants to use male facilities: The gal is on her way to becoming a guy. Just what are folks concerned "shim" is going to do to males? What sort of motive would "shim" have?
• Non-transgender folks pretending to be the other gender for a nefarious/untoward purpose:
  • This could happen before and after either law. Neither law changes that.
  • The Charlotte ordinance allowing flexibility makes sense only when considered/applied to transgender people, not to non-transgender people.
  • The state law that overturned the Charlotte ordinance doesn't apply to non-governmental facilities. If this is going to happen, some place other than a government building, such as a mall, theater, etc. is a far better venue to do it in than is a government facility like offices, schools, etc.

Here's the relevant section of the Charlotte Ordinance:

Strangely, the NC Governor highlighted the bit about restrooms, but didn't encircle the sentence immediately before subsection b1. Are North Carolinians in the main so damned dense that there's reason to think that most of them don't see showers, restrooms, et al as inherently private in nature, even if they exist in a public building?


What seems at the heart of the matter is that Charlotte passed a law prohibiting discrimination, and someone, apparently many ones, want to discriminate against precisely the folks in precisely the ways the Charlotte ordinance prohibited. Those ones clearly have the Governor's ear along with those of the NC legislature. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

Again my issue is not with the NC law, to me it's irrelevant. My issue is with the, I'm hoping, unintended consequences of allowing males into girls locker rooms. The idea that children have no right to privacy in a school locker room just blows my mind.

I've found references to six different states with issues in high school girls locker rooms. Our daughters are basically being used as guinea pigs for some idiots social experiments.

Else where on this forum some one posted a story from the U Toronto where guys in the girls locker room video taped the girls in the shower. Brilliant.

Perhaps you missed that I addressed that aspect as well. See the red text in the quotes above. The unintended consequences of laws about what restroom transgender people use aren't going to do anything to ameliorate the problem that concerns you. Also, why does girls in males locker rooms not concern you?

You asked, "Can some one tell me how this makes sense?" My response shows how your line of argument does not make sense.

Blue:
I apparently missed them. Where are they? What six states? What issues in each?

Again it all comes down to this, you have a male who identifies as female who doesn't feel comfortable in the male facilities, so he uses the female facilities. If the 20 females in the female facilities don't feel comfortable with a male in their locker room, they're basically told to get over it. Doesn't make sense.

As far as where this issue is in play, this article cites a number of them. I posted a number of links on another thread but was not happy that the sources are indeed right leaning but I haven't had time to individually search for others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/u...make-gains-schools-hesitate-at-bathrooms.html

"California, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and the District of Columbia have already adopted policies requiring schools to permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on the student’s gender identity."

This issue has also arisen in Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona & Minnesota to my knowledge. In virtually every case the fed gov is threatening to withhold funds if boys aren't allowed in the girls locker rooms. The parents are of course irrelevant.

I'll post the links from the other thread but again they are definitely right leaning.

Minnesota
Schools propose: Let boys into girls locker rooms

Kentucky
Victory! Boys born as boys can shower with girls in Kentucky school - Hot Air

California
State ordering girls’ locker rooms open to boys

Illinois
Boys in Girls Locker Rooms

Washington
College Allows Transgender Man to Expose Himself to Young Girls

Massachusets
State mandate: Allow boys in girls’ locker rooms

Arizona
Boys Allowed to Use Girls’ Bathroom, Locker Rooms and Showers in Tucson School District