Over the weekend, a woman found a man masturbating in the stall next to her in a popular downtown Charlotte restaurant’s bathroom. Under the Charlotte Ordinance, the man’s presence in the ladies room would have been legal. Under HB 2, his presence there is illegal.
Just a day or so later, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a 70 page injunction against HB 2. The injunction restated the original complaint filed against North Carolina, which the DOJ seems unwilling to wait for the courts to actually hear.
Much of the injunction is background information, but there were some interesting bits in there that rely more on emotion than law or logic.
The injunction hinges mainly on the requirement of facilities use based on biological sex and its main assertion seems to be that transgender individuals must produce that document in order to gain access.
That’s not true. At all.
HB 2 first defines biological sex by referring to the sex assigned at birth on one’s birth certificate:
“Biological sex. – The physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate.”
HB 2 does not require the production of said birth certificate or other document for access to facilities. What HB actually says is this:
“Public agencies shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex.”
The injunction goes on to assert that believing you are the opposite sex in your head is the same as being that actual biological sex. In other words, sex is a stereotype and not an actual physical reality:
“Furthermore, discriminating against transgender women and men because they do not satisfy H.B. 2’s purportedly “biological” definition of who counts as “women” and “men” impermissibly discriminates against transgender individuals based on sex stereotypes.”
The injunction is nothing short of insulting and employs the false narrative employed by opponents of HB 2 of ‘transgender bathroom crime’:
“Furthermore, Defendants’ purported privacy and public safety interests in enacting and implementing H.B. 2 are factually baseless and legally insufficient to justify this discrimination. As the record shows, transgender people in North Carolina have long used bathrooms consistent with their gender identity in private facilities and, before H.B. 2, in public facilities, without precipitating criminal conduct or widespread complaints about the invasion of privacy.”
The concern has never been about ‘transgender bathroom crimes’, but the ease of access an open bathroom policy would supply to any predator. What the woman previously mentioned experienced in Charlotte over the weekend is a prime example.
Under the Charlotte ordinance, that woman would have had no legal recourse for complaint. Instead, she would have had to just put up with such behavior.
Remember, one of the largest news outlets in the State of North Carolina has advocated for just that — women need to ‘get over their discomfort’.
— Sister Toldjah ツ (@sistertoldjah) May 15, 2016