By now, many of you will know that North Carolina recently introduced a bill that has caused a huge uproar on the Left. Bruce Springsteen cancelled his concert, Paypal boycotted, and there has been constant liberal media coverage saying how discriminatory this law is.
I don’t like to get my information second hand so I read the bill myself. Here is the gist of what it says. You can decide for yourself if it’s horrific and worthy of boycotts.
1) The first thing the bill does is differentiate between “Multiple occupancy bathrooms or changing facilities” and “Single occupancy bathrooms or changing facilities.”
2) It describes a ‘Multiple occupancy bathroom and changing room’ as ‘a facility designed or designated to be used by more than one person at a time where STUDENTS may be in various states of UNDRESS in the PRESENCE OF OTHER PERSONS.”
3) It describes a ‘Single Occupancy Bathroom or Changing Facility” as a facility designed or designated to be used by only one person at a time where STUDENTS may be in various states of undress.”
4) Then it says that LOCAL BOARDS OF EDUCATION shall require every Multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility that IS DESIGNED FOR STUDENT USE to be designated for and used only by students based on their biological sex.”
5) ‘Biological Sex” is defined as ‘the physical state of being male or female which is stated on a person’s birth certificate.’
Facts are important. And with issues like this, emotion can get in the way of critical assessment. In many cases, all it takes is a headline like “North Carolina introduces anti-LGBT law” and very few people dig deeper and read the law themselves to critically assess whether it is actually discriminatory by legal standards. You’d be surprised how many people formulate their entire opinion off a headline, which makes it very easy to spread mis-information.
So taking the above wording exactly at face value, this is what the Bill does:
a) It applies only to Local Boards of Education and only to bathrooms that are used by students. So it is very limited in its application and is there only to protect the privacy of young students.
b) It does not apply to student bathrooms where only one person is in there at a time. It applies only to bathrooms or changing facilities where many students use the same facility at the same time.
c) It does not apply to student facilities where students are not undressed – it only applies where there will be students undressing.
d) It says that in these limited instances (where young students are undressed), men or boys are not permitted to go into the girl’s bathroom. And women or girls are not permitted to go into the boy’s bathroom.
So the whole point of this bill is to say that local boards of education shall ensure that a bathroom or change room that accommodates young girl students in various stages of being undressed, should not allow men or boys to go in there. That’s it.
You can read the bill from cover to cover and you will not find one sentence of discrimination in there. The same rules apply for boy and girl students.
The second part of the Bill is very short and simply amends what is already there. It’s known as the ‘Wage and Hour Act’ and says that counties and cities may use private contractors to do their work and if they do apply conditions to their use of private contractors, it can only be conditions as required by State Law. And the third part of the bill is an anti-discrimination section saying that the prevention of discrimination is an important issue, all charges of discrimination are to be heard by the Human Relations Commission, and regulations can’t be in conflict with state law. It also says that designating a bathroom for boys only or for girls only will not be deemed as discrimination.
Disgusting? Bigoted? One really has to dig deep to try and find out what the outrage could be linked to. Reading some liberal opinion pieces, the main issue they seem to have with the law is that it doesn’t allow men who identify as women to go into the women’s bathroom. Their view is that if a man thinks he is a woman, he should be allowed to go into the bathroom with young girl students, and if he is not allowed to, then it is discriminatory against his rights. What rights? – I don’t know. Men have never had a legal right to use the women’s bathroom. They have a legal right to equality. So if there is a women’s bathroom available, there should also be a men’s bathroom available. But there is no legal right for a man to go into the women’s bathroom. There never has been.
So on the one side of the argument, you have citizens praising the Act and parents saying “When my daughter is at school, in the locker room and undressed, I don’t want strange men to be in there with her. Our daughters are entitled to the privacy and security of knowing that they don’t have to undress in front of men they don’t know.” And on the other side, you have a movement that is saying “If a man thinks he’s a woman, he should be able to go in. You can’t force a man to use the men’s bathroom if he believes he is a woman. His ‘right’ to use the women’s bathroom should trump the little girl’s right to privacy.”
That’s it. That’s the wording of the Bill and those are the arguments I’ve seen on both sides. You decide.