Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I'm going to spend a lot of time setting this up. The "Serious Debate" portion will show up at the bottom, so bear with me, or skim if you have to.

You've probably heard about this already. There are numerous places to read about it, and numerous opinions on it, but here's the gist of the story.

A city in North Carolina passed an ordinance that allowed people to use public bathrooms of the gender they identified as – meaning, transgender people are able to use government-provided bathrooms they want. The Republican officeholders didn't like this, so they pulled a special session in the legislature together (which I feel the need to note, cost significant amounts of money) and passed a bill in 12 hours which undid that section of the ordinance, made it so that if you use a public bathroom you had to use the one matching the biological sex on your birth certificate, and prevented any cities from passing anything which was looser in terms of preventing people from using the bathroom they wanted.

There are other provisions in the bill, and in the ordinance that prompted the bill, but this is the part that got the most attention.

This drew massive backlash, with numerous businesses and events pulling out from North Carolina. On April 13th, the LGBT website Advocate posted a list of such kinds of backlash.

Ringo Starr announced today the cancellation of his show scheduled for June 18 in protest of HB 2. In a press release, Starr says that he "stands with those fighting against the bigotry of HB 2." He apologized to his fans, saying, "I'm sorry to dissapoint my fans in the area, but we need to take a stand against this hatred. Spread peace and love."

On Tuesday, Deutsche Bank announced it was canceling a planned expansion of its operations in Cary, which is near Raleigh, the state capital. The expansion would have added 250 jobs; 900 people are already employed at the Cary facility.

Last week, PayPal announced it canceled plans to open a new global payment center in Charlotte, which was expected to bring 400 new jobs to the city.

Bruce Springsteen canceled a concert that was to be held last Sunday in Greensboro because of his opposition to HB 2. "Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry -- which is happening as I write -- is one of them," he said in a statement.

Thirteen planned conventions and events in Charlotte have been canceled in response to the state's anti-LGBT bill. And 29 more groups are on a “hesitant/concerned list,” reports The Charlotte Observer.

The New York Times notes that the state could lose billions of dollars in federal funding for schools, highways, and housing.

Eight cities and four states have banned publicly funded employee travel to the state.

Lionsgate canceled an eight-day production shoot in response to the bill.

The Tony-award winning Broadway composer Stephen Schwartz and his collaborators halted all productions of Wicked in the state in protest.

Ten U.S. mayors formed a pro-LGBT coalition to put economic pressure on states such as North Carolina. Along with working together to ban travel to states that pass anti-LGBT legislation, the mayors will coordinate to examine "prohibitions on contracting and purchasing from companies in these states," along with developing "model resolutions that can be adopted by city councils and other legislative bodies" across the country.

Just recently, the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletics Association) decided to move 7 championship events out of NC due to the law. This is what prompted me to make this thread.

So, yeah, people are not happy about this bill. Clearly, it's had a major economic impact (which is ironic, because staying economically competitive was mentioned in HB2 as motivation behind some of the provisions). It's also kept it in the modern debate, with things continually happening to mess with the state.

Alright, here's the actual debate part. I have a few questions for everyone.

1. Is the bill wise? Are the contents of the bill (especially the parts relating to transgender bathroom usage, but not limited to that) logical and reasonable?
2. Was it right for them to pass the bill in the way they did? Keep in mind they passed it in a rush – 12 hours, incurring a monetary cost.
3. Is it right for them to keep the bill? With the economic cost, the massive backlash, and the general lack of support for the bill should they repeal it?

Here are my thoughts.

I don't believe the bill is a wise decision. I'm for less centralization, less higher-up government regulation – meaning, I go further than even "state's rights" speakers, wanting cities to have the ability to make their own laws as they see fit as well. I don't believe it was right for the state government to rescind the cities law, as well as prevent any further cities from doing the same.

Furthermore, transgender people are far more likely to be harassed in bathrooms than they are to harass others. I don't like the argument "it's never happened before", because once it does (and it will) suddenly you lose a leg to stand on, but the general idea remains – transgender people are the subject of far more bathroom related issues than they are to cause.

Also, this.

I don't believe it was right of them to pass the bill the way they did, either. It was literally one city, and they decided that the people in charge were too incompetent to change it if it caused issues. No, they felt the need to spend lots of taxpayer money to pass a bill with little to no time for any citizens or advocacy organizations to have a say on it, and now it's blowing up in their faces.

I am uncertain on the last question. Part of the idea behind electing someone to vote for you is that the system is less prone to rapidly shifting in the populist winds. 50% of the population is average or below-average intelligence, remember. 50% have average or less than average knowledge regarding the relevant issues in any bill. As such, direct democracy doesn't always work quite as well as we'd hope. (Of course, it might also cause issues in that we're stuck with an idiot if we elect one in – but that's a different debate.) Even if I don't like his choice, he was chosen by the people to have the power to make that choice.

So now that I've said all that, what do you all think?

I have 2 sides on this issue: 1 is that the idea of HB2 and in general restrictive bathroom bills is generally wrong, and 2 that states' rights and local rights should be respected. So both of my main opinions directly contrast HB2.

First I'll explain the hierarchy of power thing. I used to be very authoritarian on this along with some other stuff but lately I've kind of chilled out. While I believe trans people (and I even believe anyone) should be able to use the bathroom that they please, I don't think this should be forced either. I used to think we should make a federal law prohibiting stuff like HB2 to be made, but I realized bathrooms aren't that important and I realized the role of state and local rights. I will fight for bathroom freedom but only locally. What the NC state legislature did was really dickish constitutionally and ethically and I wouldn't do it for the opposing view either.

So the 2nd more controversial part is what I believe should be done with the bathrooms ethically. Over a very short period time I've become more conservative on a lot of stuff and also very indecisive on a lot of stuff, but this is still one of the more liberal positions I hold.

For one thing, as Rivers brought up trans people being harassed in bathrooms is very very much more likely. In fact it already happens plenty. In and out of bathrooms, and letting them go where they choose and where they actually present as would make things so much easier. And think about it, if someone was despicable enough to go into a bathroom with the intent of sexual harassment wouldn't they have gone in regardless of laws in place, because sexual harassment is illegal either way.

And statistically it's been shown places that have free bathrooms have 0 change in bathroom crime, the crime that happens was already going to happen. And it's pretty obvious when someone is committing sexual assault in a place as public as a bathroom even if they're just looking to get peeks they will be caught almost immediately in most situations.

The best argument for my case though is the fact that making laws like HB2 basically creates a witch-hunt. There's no effective way to enforce it like at all. I mean there's no one to check the door for birth certificates that's an invasion of privacy and a waste of resources. There are multiple stories of cis women who don't look "female enough" being bullied out of bathrooms by lunatics. And when the target thing happened there were basically parades of assholes running around with megaphones screaming about "the children" and bullying people out of bathrooms.

The only cases of invasion of privacy and lack of safety in bathrooms I heard of when the controversy was hot was from people who like HB2 and were trying to vigilante-style enforce it. And these people are actually able to do this under these laws unlike with sexual harassment where as I said you'll be caught fucking immediately if you even attempt to do some form of it.

So yeah as I said I think bathroom restrictions have basically no advantages to them or argument really, but I do think that this should be a localized issue there's nothing grand at state requiring state or federal interference. It's just stupid.

1) No.

2) No.

3.1) No.
3.2) Yes

/thread

Does anyone else think that the response is not only a bit extreme, but also seems to be hurting the citizens more than the government? Pulling 400 jobs from the state less hurts the state and more hurts the 400 people who need those jobs to keep their house and feed themselves. As someone currently looking for a job myself, this deeply disturbs me.

I can understand doing things that will deny the government body money, but hurting the people who don't have control over their government really is just hurting people rather than helping them. Especially since, as far as we've seen, most of the states don't give a shit about these restrictions.

And while I can't seem to find a more detailed description of those travel bans than "prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to fund travel to states like North Carolina" and "banning of all official non-essential travel", that seems to me like it will hurt businesses that rely on things like this more than the state.

All to achieve something whose business belongs in the national congress. If these people want country-wide free access of bathrooms, they should be focusing more on trying to pass nation-wide legislation rather than engaging in an economic war with states that don't follow their laws that does more to hurt the citizens than the state itself.

1. No.
2. No. It was a extremely dickish-sneaky move.
3. No to the first part of the question, yes to the second part.

IMO the whole thing was a mistake. Like anime.

They must have known beforehand the massive amounts of backlash they would get. That more people support transgender than ever before. That transgender people existed before these kind of laws were even a concept yet there are no recorded incidents (that I know of) that are a result of transgender people going into the "wrong" bathroom.

Now I will defend their right to do it. But just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Freedom of expression =/= freedom from criticism.

Why are bathrooms even gendered, anyways?

Does anyone else think that the response is not only a bit extreme, but also seems to be hurting the citizens more than the government?

This is actually a part I forgot to add in making this big thread late at night (for me).

Is the response by businesses right?

I read a rather interesting article (which I can't link at the moment) that argued the business protest is causing more harm than good. It especially focused on LGBT teens, who don't have a choice really and must stay in the economic struggle they've caused, ironically.

@Picatta and RM

Mind actually contributing a bit in serious debate? I know that's a lot to ask for, but a list of yes and nos doesn't help further the discussion much.

@Honeytiger

Sex separated bathrooms in the US came into being when women came into the workforce in decent numbers and everyone felt like they had to be paternalistic. Nothing about separating via genitals, just "women are weak and not used to being out so we have to protect them and take care of them because they can't handle it". (According to The Guardian)

{ I can understand doing things that will deny the government body money, but hurting the people who don’t have control over their government really is just hurting people rather than helping them. }

They don't want to help people, they want people to be outraged according to their agenda. That's also why BLM blocks traffic trying to get to work/airports during rush hour. Once everybody's pissed they say DON'T BE MAD AT US, BE MAD AT THE POLICE/POLITICIANS/WORLD THAT PUT US HERE!

{ So, yeah, people are not happy about this bill. }

I don't think the people making these decisions give a fuck either way, but this move is supposed to reflect well on them in the public eye. Colleges are very into activism right now, I would be more surprised if there wasn't some "divest from NC" movement than I am to hear the NCAA pulled out.

& also I feel like we've had a thread for this and gone over it but… literally unenforceable. What are you going to do, dick checks at the door?? TSA did a full body pat down on my 70 year old dementia patient client today (and a titty check for me) at 5:30am so I'm really not in the mood for other people touching me/getting in my space atm and would not be any more in the mood if I also had to piss. The whole thing is honestly ridiculous, both the TSA and the bathrooms.

@Ryumaru

I can see how you feel that way but it's entirely within these businesses' rights to do all of this they're just exercising the free market and their free speech. I would defend the right of these businesses to do this even if they were doing this for a viewpoint I didn't like.

But is it moral is the real question. I lean more towards yes it kind of is because how else will any action be taken. In a republic it's very hard to move anything around or accomplish anything. Well except when the turds at NC passed this thing in 12 hours without any outside input. So they need some kind of pressure or they'll never change. But as you said shouldn't that pressure only come from citizens within the state and not the entire country trying to crush them? I honestly am not too sure this is not something I'm very decisive about.

You say that it's hurting the people more than the government, but even in an imperfect republic isn't it the same thing? If the people are directly being harmed by the lawmakers there is a pretty significant upset something has to bend. But also it's been months and months of this boycotting and the lawmakers haven't done anything, so you might be right. And all these companies are doing this for publicity anyways. Well I wouldn't say all but a vast majority. I dunno this is a weird situation but your points are solid af to put it simply.

And about what honeytiger brought up it reminds me do you know what one of my favorite things is? (sarcastically of course) It's when facilities have single room bathrooms where there's complete privacy but they gender them. Most people don't care or notice but since I'm trans and more prone to seeing absurd gendering I kind of laugh whenever I see it because in this case it's not even a bullshit safety argument it's literally just something people do socially.

And arguably gendering more public bathrooms at all is pretty arbitrary. I think people are almost too jaded by human nature at this point like I saw a pretty good analysis video once explaining how this whole debacle isn't really shaming trans people for being born to sexually assault, it's blaming men. I've seen coed apartments work many times in the past I think sometimes people are just imagining men as beings of raw evil or even some men projecting on their desires and seeing it as the standard.

And I've heard many examples of packed places where women just walk into the men's bathroom due to lines outside the women's and does rape happen left and right? No the average person isn't an immoral pervert.

And how could I forget in my last post, just to prove the witch hunt-y nature of HB2 and the like, the governor I think of NC set up a hotline at some point to report "non-women" in bathrooms. Because scoping everyone in the bathroom out and calling security if you think they're too manly or vice versa is protecting privacy.

This law on every level is stupid. Because you have to ask yourself, how is this law enforceable? How do you actually make sure that people aren't going into different bathrooms. Unless you have a designated bouncer to stand outside of every bathroom and stop people from going in without showing their ID first, this can't really be enforced. I mean, as a guy, I admit that once when I really had to use the bathroom and the men's room was locked, I went into the womans restroom and just sprinted each time.

There wasn't some magical barrier that prevented me from doing that, and there was no security guard to stop it. Without either, this law is pretty meaningless. It's like saying "The Speed Limit For Driving On the Bottom Of the Ocean is 45 MPH only". Like, okay, that's the law now, but how is that actually enforceable?

The whole thing is just dumb and it shouldn't have beeen passed. The way it was passed was shady as well, but it's hardly a breaking from the norm when it comes to political law passage. The pressure on the state seems almost an overstep on everyones parts, and the ban on travel could almost be illegal in itself as a violation of the constitutions privileges and immunities clause.

Overall, this seems a bad decsion for everyone involved.

@Slutty Sam

I never argued it what they were doing was illegal or that they were unjustified in taking action, just that they are hurting the wrong people with their protests

They are hurting the citizens who never got a chance to speak up in regards to the law more then they are hurting the people who actually passed it. As the lawmakers have proven these past few months, they don't give a shit about the businesses pulling out of their state, at least not enough to revert a decision they all felt strongly enough about to pass a law in 12 hours. Not just that, but as I said, I feel like a state to state economic war will not solve anything and just split the nation even further than it already is on this issue.

Yes, it takes time to pass a law in the federal government, but really, that's the only real way you can guarantee something is enforced nation-wide. If these lawmakers and companies really wanted to make a difference instead of just pulling a publicity stunt, they would stop hurting people who live in the wrong state and push for this issue to be solved on the national stage.

"TSA for Bathrooms" is, amusingly, a joke South Park did long ago.

Yeah that makes sense if these people are acting like they want this to be a nationwide standard than they should actually do something nationally in order to see that through. I can see how too much damage is being done because as I said it's going to be what almost a year now since this controversy hit it big and NC hasn't budged it's just getting pummeled.

As I said I want this issue to be local and free so I submit you're right these companies are being immature.

^^

@Picatta and RM
Mind actually contributing a bit in serious debate? I know that’s a lot to ask for, but a list of yes and nos doesn’t help further the discussion much.

We went over this bill before, so I found it redundant to go over it seriously again. But fair enough.

The idea of a country is built on compromise. None of us get everything we want, but it's always better than being enforced to live by the rule of one side.

That's where I believe this bill failed misserably, and the backlash it caused, to a point where I can't support either side anymore. Yes, the bill was wrong, the way they passed it was wrong, and it should be repealed. But that doesn't mean I support the original ordinance either.

The backlash gives off a message from the trans camp that everyone must accept their trans status and should adapt to it. It's the 21st century, I can understand where the 1st world stands socially, but enforcing acceptance is a bit much.

Have people warm up to the idea of trans, but also accept lenience. Accept your own position and their point of view towards it. Where are you in your transformation, can you already pass as the opposite gender? How would a woman feel if they saw someone looking like a male in every sense of the word but "identifies as female" enter their bathroom. If they feel uncomfortable and prefer to have you use the other bathroom, that's a fair request. I wouldn't want two women who "identify as male" giggling behind me as I pee standing either.

Cooperate towards acceptance, try to have people accept you but don't judge them when they don't always succeed. I can understand from a trans point of view that it's not always fun that the world can't accept your ideal society, but don't expect or enforce them to either.

The toilet bill isn't cooperating towards acceptance, but neither is the backlash. It's two extremes, fighting each other, to accept one and reject the other. It rejects the idea of a country.

Also, it's a bathroom. You're there to take a frigging leak, not to argue trans rights. This isn't gay marriage. Enter, piss, exit; it's not rocket science. And that's what makes this bill dumb as well, like was pointed out before, impossible to enforce.

Edit:

What's there left is say really? The bill is wrong and stupid. Like people before me have posted, how do you enforced? By checking inside people's pants? For those complaining about perverts and shit, perverts will be perverts whether there's a law or not. The way they implemented was sneaky-sneaky shady as fuck, I think we can agree on that.

@Piccata Yeah, I feel like everyone here already said everything they had to say about the bill itself when it was first passed, not much has changed since then other than the fact that the economic backlash against it seems to have done nothing to get it repealed.

The Senator that got it passed is losing in popularity polls, which will affect elections.

So at the very least they hit that guy where it hurts.

Didn't the entire house write and vote on the bill? Unless the NC house gets mass replaced, I don't see how that will help, unless they are all losing their popularity polls.

People focus on the governor, or the president, or the mayor, with way less attention given to the other two branches of government – the courts and the legislature. It's sad, and complicates true progress (however you define it), but it's true.

1. No.
2. Still No.
3. The main thing I dislike about this bill, not just that it's offensive towards anyone related towards the LGBT. It is the fact that it can easily be abused by perverts.
An illustrated example:

And still no. And Yes into repealing it.

It is the fact that it can easily be abused by perverts.

MTF trans* people aren't gonna look like that dude in the picture. If you're an adult, you're going to have the ability to at least get makeup and a dress. If you're a child, well, your parents probably either are supportive and thus you'll have ways to look feminine, or you aren't going in to those bathrooms anyways.

Entering a female bathroom while looking like a male is going to be bad for you, plain and simple. People are going to freak out. They're going to be uncomfortable. You're going to get looks. (Assuming people are inside, which is what perverts would want.)

Simply put – it is highly unlikely for any actual MTF trans person to look anything like the person in the picture you provided.

Also, this entire argument fails to recognize that there are already laws against voyeurism and sexual assault. Do you think lesbian women would get away with doing that to other women as is? Probably not. People who claim to be trans wouldn't either, then.

The entire thing about perverts misusing the laws is fearmongering. That's all it is. It has no basis in reality. The only people I've ever heard abusing these laws are people saying it's abusable, ironically. Even if someone did legitimately abuse it, that's still only one (or a few), as compared multiple cases of trans people who have transitioned effectively and would be forced to use the bathroom that doesn't match up with their looks.

>3. The main thing I dislike about this bill, not just that it’s offensive towards anyone related towards the LGBT. It is the fact that it can easily be abused by perverts.

this bill, in no way what so ever, makes it easier or harder to spy on or record women in the restroom. As if that is actually even a real concern.

What is even the thought process? No matter what the restroom laws are or who you are, people are going to freak out if you try to record them.

1. No. Economic warfare aside, I think the idea was sound, but there needs to be stricter wording for this to avoid misuse by perverts. Then again I'm a little unsure what exactly does "government-provided bathrooms" and presume they for for things like court houses and schools rather than businesses like Target (which did a…different approach to trans-friendly bathrooms) or Walmart
2. Also no. This kind of filibuster preety much screwed the comapny over and gave the Republicans even worse PR. Which is kinda a big deal when getting votes
3. At the very least I'd say an amendment for protection of the privacy of those in the bathroom (male, female and trans). I'd say it depends on whether it values the wellbeing of the citizens, their ideology and values or their economy more

@Honeybadgers I assume that urinals how guys usually urinate have something to do with it. But that can be easily fixed by putting them in stalls rather then keeping them out in the open. Come to think of it. I think some guys use toilets similar as well when at home. But due to the inherent grossness of the topic of urination I'm gonna end it here

If you're gonna wait for this law to get passed in order to spy in bathrooms, you're a terrible pervert.

I see, so there are precautions against this kind of thing then? That's good.

I still would like to to know the extent of this law's scope. I'm still under the assumption that it would be for for public places, courthouses, schools, etc. But does it extent to businesses as well?

From what I read, it covers government bathrooms such as in courthouses and schools. Private businesses are allowed to have any rules they wish, as long as they don't contradict any other laws in place of course. (There are laws that regulate things like number of toilets and urinals, IIRC.)

I feel like it's important to put my opinion out in a different way, screw that post quoted made by myself, I didn't think things more thoughtfully. So I going to try again. The bill still shouldn't be passed and I knew it was going to be uncomfortable for people if the bill is passed. And I know that perverts aren't going to look like that stereotype in the picture obviously, knowing it's most likely they aren't going to abuse this law and it's still going to be uncomfortable to see a male be in a female restroom. But, I still say no to this bill.

Is it truly THAT difficult to just have gender neutral bathrooms?
Personally, I'd rather have two gender neutral bathrooms than one for each gender. Just seriously, get over it, go into a private stall, sit down, do your business, and move on with life