Even if that were passed by Congress, it still does not mean that the law is unconstitutional or that the law must be rescinded.
All protected class designation does is give one the right to sue claiming discrimination; it is not an overriding of others’ rights. It is very possible that courts and SCOTUS could find that not allowing easier access to potential victims in female-only areas by males, who now would not be stopped from entering, could supersede any issue of discrimination. Also, it could be found the law violates others’ right to privacy and given that no legislation can override a base constitutional right, then it stops there as well.
What the hell is this obsession with “potential victims in female-only areas”???
The only thing that’s needed to make anyone a potential victim is isolation - and once the victim is isolated, it doesn’t make a damned bit of difference whether the assailant is a woman, a man, or a three-headed, eight-armed, green-skinned Martian!
Would be male rapist of women and children in restrooms:
“Okay, another day, another assault. Let’s get it on!”
Walks towards a ladies’ restroom, sees the following: “Only females as noted on birth certificate allowed in ladies’ restroom.”
Stops suddenly. “Oh no! They passed a law saying I can’t go in there because my birth certificate says I was born a male. DAMN! This sucks!”
Sighs, skulks off, and drives to another state where there are no laws keeping males out of ladies’ restrooms.
Yeah, this law will protect women and children from assaults by those who don’t respect the laws with regard to attacking innocent people, but who WILL respect the law with regard to entering the “proper” restroom. SMH…
The law most likely will be thrown out because the state doesn’t have the right to override local laws. Title VII has been held to protect transgender people on the basis of gender discrimination already in some federal courts (obviously not binding since it wasn’t SCOTUS), but the Roemer decision, where the all so loving religious people got a ballot passed that negated anti discrimination laws in places that passed them, and the Supreme Court ruled that that violated local sovereignty, that under the federal constitution the state government didn’t have the right based on seperation of powers. The NC legislature violated that by overriding Charlotte and other towns with anti discrimination laws.
@Nrdsb4
“Yeah, this law will protect women and children from assaults by those who don’t respect the laws with regard to attacking innocent people, but who WILL respect the law with regard to entering the “proper” restroom. SMH.”
Which is exactly the point, it shows why the law was written, it wasn’t written to protect women and girls in the restroom, men who likely would sexually assault women and children are already breaking the law, so why would this law deter them (given that the penalties for sexual assault are likely more than using the ‘wrong’ restroom, though this being in the great american hookworm belt I wouldn’t be surprised if they made the penalty for using the ‘wrong’ restroom more than rape, it would be par for the course), meanwhile it basically is there knowing that transgender folk are likely to actually heed the law because for the most part they have learned by hard experience that , to quote the old song, I fought the law and the law one…
I wish I could say that those supporting this law are all hardened rednecks, but like I wrote in a prior post, I would bet that more than a few of those who claim to oppose this law, secretly support it, I have heard this kind of drivel from otherwise liberal women, and especially in some parts of the lesbian community there still is the attitude that transgender women are men in a dress who therefore are using it to try and hurt women…and it is because they have hang ups with transgender women, not because they believe a man in a suit and tie will declare himself to be transgendered and go into the restroom. If a man in a suit and tie wants to sexually assault women and girls, they wouldn’t care about being in the wrong restroom, and given that the penalty for using the wrong restroom is likely a misdemeanor, not exactly going to deter someone willing to risk decades in jail for sexually assaulting a woman. If they were really concerned about that, they could have simply passed a bill that sexual assaults in public facilities like restrooms carried stiffer penalties, much the same way that crimes committed based on hate carry extra penalties, it would serve the purpose and also would protect a vulnerable community the brilliant NC legislature apparently doesn’t know about, the boys who get assaulted sexually in men’s rooms. The deterrence factor for a ‘wrong’ restroom won’t deter squat, in other words, and based on that, the only reason for it is to keep transgender women out of restrooms, pure and simple.
Unisex bathrooms have been the norm in Europe for decades. No problems. My D. goes to Barnard. She says that it a common occurrence to find guys in the bathrooms in the morning, having stayed over the night before. She said no one cares.
I still want to know who is going to sit outside bathrooms in NC and check birth certificates. Reminds me of the old Soviet “toilet ladies” who sold you toilet paper.
lol…actually, think about this one, if they decide to have ‘bathroom monitors’, who likely would be the ones wanting to do the job? Probably the same sexual predators they claim to want to protect women from. Think about it, you have a job where you have an excuse to go into the restroom to ‘check out a suspicious’ person, what an opportunity…
The other thing that is idiotic is how many of us carry our birth certificate with us? Some states allow transgender women who have not had surgery to change their driver’s license gender, and I believe the federal government may finally have allowed transgender women may allow passports to be changed, B/C’s generally required surgery to get that changed (if they even allow it; someone from Texas visiting NC would be in trouble, Texas doesn’t allow changing BC’s)…so does the law mean anything? So does this mean if some idiot is in the restroom, sees someone they think is transgender, that the cops will come and arrest the woman and she will then have to provide a birth certificate to be let go? The law itself is nebulous, because it could theoretically be used to prosecutre a transgender women who had SRS and had her BC changed, especially in states that (sadly) give amended BC’s, because their BC at birth will alway be M (if a transgender woman).
Well there you are, musicprnt. The whole thing is unenforceable and nonsensical, because the law wasn’t meant to address any actual problem which actually exists. It’s political theater, pure and simple.
I agree that unisex bathrooms seem to be the trend and I suspect they may become the norm. I had brunch in NYC last month at a restaurant that recently opened. It was equipped with only 1 unisex bathroom - had about 8 stalls and then a row of sinks. No one seemed to even notice and there were diners with children in the 8 to 10 year old range. Parents accompanied their children to the bathroom.
It was a “first” for me and I am ok with it. Really didn’t seem to phase anyone else either.
@lasma:
Yep, that is basically it, it is a manufactured bogeyman to make a lot of very bigoted people feel good about discriminating against a group they hate, pure and simple. The governor gains credibility with the morons ie the religious right and other haters, not to mention that it is a way for the rural areas to show they can control the cities. There have been articles recently in the NY Times and I believe the Wall Street journal that in places like the south, the gap between the cities, like Atlanta and Charlotte and Austin (okay, I know Texas is its own country) and the rest of the state, and it is causing considerable friction. Among other things, this is a giant FU towards efforts the cities have made attempts to be inclusive. What they don’t know is they are playing with fire, the corporations and such that run the show are not happy with this kind of crap, they want to be able to attract the kind of talent they need, and laws like this tell people to stay the heck away from (fill in the blank) city.
I took a group of high school students to London several years ago. We stayed in the dorms at the LSE where the shower rooms are unisex. The shower stalls had doors and benches where you could keep personal items, but the shower room was co-ed. When you finished your shower you simply put on a robe, opened the stall door and went back to your room. No one was attacked, no one freaked out. It was over 5 years ago and all of the NC high school students (and chaperones) on the trip survived the experience. This stupid law is a solution in search of a problem.
Our local suburban HS just designated a single-stall “all genders” bathroom with full support of the school administration and from what I can tell, nary a peep of protest.
IANAL, but I am curious about the practical aspects of the nforcememt. I was under the impression that SCOTUS has ruled a citizen can not be compelled to carry ID. And if that’s true (it may not be) how does a policeman verify anatomical sex without inappropriate search?
C’mon, really? The apparent purpose of the law is not to ensure individual compliance, but to discourage employers, such as Target, from implementing policies that would allow transgender staff members (and customers) to use the restroom that corresponds most closely with their gender identity.
