Bathroom Politics

State laws defining who uses which bathrooms are stupid.

Presidential edicts asserting contrived new rights based on old laws is legislating, an over-reach, and butting into an issue that would have relieved itself.

I addressed the silliness of North Carolina's HB 2 law and other states' propositions in my companion blog (The Way Things Otter Bee:  April Short Shots 2016 - last shot) - I didn't think then that it merited more than 25% of a joke post.  But as we've come to expect from our vehemently partisan politicians, hysterical accusations (or election year issue creation) has won out over good judgment.  So we're back at it.

North Carolina was busy shooting itself in the foot, multiple times, with this new bathroom law.  The collective and multi-million dollar cold shoulder from the business world, celebrities and prospective vacationers was a far more democratic humiliation that would have effected change over the long term.  Never mind that NC's new law has no effective means of enforcement.

Per a MotherJones report by Samantha Michaels:

“Because it's a civil law, using the wrong bathroom wouldn't be considered a criminal violation in itself, Hallingse from the Asheville PD points out. But the law doesn't lay out civil penalties for the violation, either, says Oakley, so police officers will have to use their best judgment when responding to complaints. Danielsen, the spokeswoman from the Greensboro PD, says officers there will try to respond with the "lowest degree of interaction" possible.”

Even the bill’s co-sponsor, state Representative Dan Bishop, wrote that:

"There are no enforcement provisions or penalties in HB2. Its purpose is to restore common sense bathroom and shower management policy in public buildings, not to pick out people to punish." **

If it wasn't repealed outright, eventually someone with enough determination would find a way to be in violation of this civil law, and a lawsuit would have occurred.  The legitimacy of HB2 would then be settled in the judicial branch, probably after an appeal or three.  Alternatively, a more well thought out and practical version of this quickly written (and quickly passed) law could be generated on the legislative side. 

The Obama Administration had the chance to act like the adult in the room, and withhold action while certain states walked themselves back from the ledge - and localities actually found acceptable solutions.  


However, a counterpoint case was made about this by a visiting friend, and it is essentially this:  You're a second term black president in his final year who has been getting nowhere with a do-nothing white conservative Congress for some time now.  A chance comes to exercise some executive, or even supra-executive power and poke them in the eye a bit - what do you do?  Based upon recent unilateral presidential decrees, and despite a number of Judiciary slap-downs, there wasn't much doubt.

(Remember when President Obama told Univision, "I am President.  I am not king.  I can't do these things just by myself."? - that was just so 2014....)

Soon after, Attorney General Lynch launched into a litany of NC transgender rights violations under Title IX and Title VII, giving the state just one week to essentially rescind the new law (which, again, isn't and can't be enforced) or face loss of federal dollars.

What's a good southern state to do?  Of course they sued and made a federal case out of it.

Despite the resounding silence of the public school systems asking for federal guidance on the issue ("they received some questions"), the Administration doubled down with a Transgender Directive in line with their interpretation of the two Titles.  Specifically, it imparts guidance that the term "sex" is determined by self-identification, and ensures open use of school bathrooms, changing rooms and showers.  It's just "practical suggestions," but implied is the threat of a similar lawsuit and billions of dollars in federal moneys going away since that was the explicit warning to NC.

But Consider This
First of all, when these laws were written in 1964 and 1972, it seems highly doubtful the authors intended that people with, say, male body parts were to be allowed in female bathrooms and communal showers because that's the sex they "identified" with.  Usually the law isn't quite so...squishy.  

Also, per the guidance letter it would require the students to submit a letter through their parents to school officials establishing this chosen identification to be given this access.  But if the Administration's interpretation of the Titles is correct, the requirement of such permission in itself would be an abridgement of the student's rights.  And certainly if this is to be the law of the land, establishing such identification in all the institutions (or at the very least:  public schools, universities receiving public funds, parks, libraries, federal/state/local government buildings, etc.) for all kids AND adults is one big step beyond birth certificates, and laughably impractical.  So essentially, by this math, anyone can use any facility they choose (and no one can object to it).

Well, in the U.S., HP gets a second bite at the apple

Therefore, we should do away with separate male and female accommodations.

"In the end we're all the same." - Ben Kweller

I am not sure America is ready for that just yet. 

Middle School Cross Country Team

For starters, ask the kids.  Then ask the parents.


You Don't Just Flip a Switch
There is both a theoretical (or legal), and a practical side to this issue.  Legally, the next Administration might prevail in a progressives-dominated SCOTUS, but where does that leave the American people?   Many progressives have likened this transgender issue to racial discrimination, except here we have a conflict with everybody else's inherent right to privacy - or maybe that's not a "right" anymore?

Some in the transgender community want main-streaming to eliminate the separate-but-equal discrimination of having access to individual facilities.  I'm sure other transgendered individuals actually prefer the latter.  Remembering that this is just not that common, school systems and local communities can work this out, and have been already.  But if the law is pushed through, main-streaming it is. 

Which brings us to everybody else.  It's already a fairly uncomfortable and charged situation in the boys' and girls' locker rooms.  Disparate rates of puberty and physical development exacerbate this.  Adding a 6th grade transgender (anatomical) girl to the boys' locker room (or vice versa), who frequently towers a foot or more over her male counterparts and is way ahead in the puberty department, would be an event.

At the general population level, such encounters would be relatively rare, but with the Administration's in-your-face push on this issue, it won't be decided in a sensitive way, but by the most extreme cases and whether it could happen at all.  Many women are uncomfortable just working out in front of men (hence the popularity of women's gyms); how would showering in front of them fly? 

Further, the potential for abuse and harassment goes up significantly when you sanctify the right to "feel" like a natural woman, all evidence to the contrary.  Any perv with a small camera now would have free access, plus a ticket to claim victim-hood if anyone dared call him on it.  And despite the low percentage risk, safety issues would linger in people's minds and certainly be highlighted in the media.

Although this can (and did) happen without the free Gender Pass, his presence in the women's room might soon go unquestioned or unchallenged.  Disregarding physical differences in sex is going to make most people very uncomfortable for awhile, or at least the idea of it will.

...

This is a complex issue and not only would it be addressed more effectively on a local level, but attitude changes and acceptance will take time.  Rushing certain issues through by unilateral decree, either to have an election wedge issue, cement a progressive legacy, or just to get things done doesn't mean there's an easy solution.  

Just like you don't just put up Stop Signs on the Highway,

These changes take time and planning.

Individual unisex locker rooms / showers may be where the line has to be drawn.  Right now, anyone who even remotely resembles a person of the denoted male or female sex can utilize that particular bathroom.  However, especially in schools, not everyone can be "mainstreamed" (as some in the LGBT community wish) at the cost of everyone else's right to privacy.  

But eventually, someday, maybe no one will care.

We've May Have Bigger Problems in the Bathroom

"Yes?..."