# Legal Experts: US DOJ vs NC **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 5, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005 "2016-05-05T19:36:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/61 "2016-05-16T16:00:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is “meeting the desires of most of its citizens, without imposing a real burden on anyone” not an important government interest? No, meeting the desires of citizens is not an important government interest for the meaning of the test. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This may have something to do with standing. Who would have standing to challenge bathrooms separated by gender identity? Anyone who wants to use a bathroom and is denied access on account of their sex. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/62 "2016-05-20T01:39:46Z")
Interesting article, apparently the laws for Title IX funding passed by a GOP congress explicitly protect gender identity, there’s no ‘reading it into the law’. [The Media Is Lying About Why North Carolina Is Being Sued](http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/cristanwilliams/the_media_is_lying_about_why_north_carolina_is_being_sued) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/63 "2016-05-20T01:54:05Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Interesting article, apparently the laws for Title IX funding passed by a GOP congress explicitly protect gender identity, there’s no ‘reading it into the law’. [The Media Is Lying About Why North Carolina Is Being Sued](http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/cristanwilliams/the_media_is_lying_about_why_north_carolina_is_being_sued) Heh–I just came here to post that exact article. So I’ll post some quotes instead: > [@Violence Against Women Act](#): > > No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103–322 ; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106–386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109–162 ; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 , and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women. And from a 2015 guide to receiving Title IX funding, issued by the DOE: > [@](#): > > Title IX protects students, employees, applicants for admission and employment, and other persons from all forms of sex discrimination, including discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity. All students (as well as other persons) at recipient institutions are protected by Title IX—regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, part- or full-time status, disability, race, or national origin—in all aspects of a recipient’s educational programs and activities. This seems slam-dunky to me. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/64 "2016-05-20T14:32:06Z")
Yes, I think it’s interesting that some of the earlier discussion in this thread was whether gender identity was protected based on judicial opinions, but it doesn’t look like it’s a matter of whether precedent for including gender identity as a protected class exists or not. You don’t need judicial precedent saying ‘this applies to X’ when the statute itself explicitly says that it applies to X in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/65 "2016-05-20T15:17:23Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Interesting article, apparently the laws for Title IX funding passed by a GOP congress explicitly protect gender identity, there’s no ‘reading it into the law’. [The Media Is Lying About Why North Carolina Is Being Sued](http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/cristanwilliams/the_media_is_lying_about_why_north_carolina_is_being_sued) I [addressed this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19345067&postcount=336) in the other thread in which you posted this. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/66 "2016-05-20T15:36:53Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > C’mon. Do you really think that would work? Or do you think they’d require action on your part to raise the issue ahead of time? > > I seem to recall your raising similar silly situations as a rear-guard action against SSM. The legal system is not so easily stymied, in my experience. Worse, he was trying to use hypotheticals to show how confusing SSM would be instead of actually looking at real cases that showed how courts dealt with the exact issues of his hypotheticals. It would be like me going into a thread and saying “But what if someone married outside of their race? WHAT THEN!!!” But I didn’t realize during those previous exchanges that UltraVires is jtgain. Lightbulb moment. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/67 "2016-05-20T16:05:21Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > But I didn’t realize during those previous exchanges that UltraVires is jtgain. Lightbulb moment. Woah. Thanks for that–I didn’t realize either. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2016, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/68 "2016-05-21T19:48:24Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I [addressed this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19345067&postcount=336) in the other thread in which you posted this. I would have just bypassed your post, but since you put it into two threads I’ll address it. You declared your interpretation of the terms in the statutes, but I don’t agree with your interpretation and it’s not backed by anything other than ‘you think so’, so I don’t cnsider the point ‘addressed’. You’re one of the people who clearly have a severe bias on this topic, that I’ve spent time arguing with before then decided it wasn’t worth the time, so I’m not going to go back and forth on this with you. ---
**Author:** ![spamforbrains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@spamforbrains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spamforbrains)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/69 "2016-05-21T20:32:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Gedd View Post > The law causes no harm? Have you seen the videos and stories of women who look masculine getting kicked out of bathrooms?" > > How about the woman who is a woman, identifies as a woman and is followed into the women’s restroom by a man who thought she was a man. And many of those women don’t even look very masculine. This disturbs me enough that I’m not going to NC for any reason. This law should be struck down on the grounds it causes civil unrest and endangers a significant proportion of the population. These things never happened before the law was passed. Why hasn’t anyone challenged the oh-so-obviously discriminatory law that only persons believed to be men have to sign up for the draft? And why can’t people petition to have their sex legally changed? I can have my name legally changed from what is on my birth certificate, something that presumably my parents put much thought into. Why can’t I have my sex changed, something that presumably was registered after a casual glance at external baby genitalia by a doctor? They don’t perform chromosomal tests or check the internal organs before they fill out the birth certificate; it’s an entirely subjective opinion of one person based on highly limited information. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2016, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/70 "2016-05-21T20:36:24Z")
> [@spamforbrains](#): > > …after a casual glance at external baby genitalia by a doctor? They don’t perform chromosomal tests or check the internal organs before they fill out the birth certificate; it’s an entirely subjective opinion of one person based on highly limited information. Still, they seem to do a quite reliable job – they get over 99% correct. ---
**Author:** ![spamforbrains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@spamforbrains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spamforbrains)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/71 "2016-05-21T20:49:33Z")
It is rare, but it happens often enough there should be a legal way to fix what is on your birth certificate re: sex. > [@](#): > > Below we provide a summary of statistics drawn from an article by Brown University researcher Anne Fausto-Sterling.2 The basis for that article was an extensive review of the medical literature from 1955 to 1998 aimed at producing numeric estimates for the frequency of sex variations. Note that the frequency of some of these conditions, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, differs for different populations. These statistics are approximations. > > Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births > Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births > Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births > Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births > Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births > Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals > Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births > Ovotestes one in 83,000 births > Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births > Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate > 5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate > Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate > Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births > Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births > Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births > Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births > Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births > 1 Dreger, Alice Domurat. 1998. Ambiguous Sex—or Ambivalent Medicine? Ethical Issues in the Treatment of Intersexuality. Hastings Center Report, 28, 3: 24-35. > > 2 Blackless, Melanie, Anthony Charuvastra, Amanda Derryck, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Karl Lauzanne, and Ellen Lee. 2000. How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology 12:151-166. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2016, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/72 "2016-05-21T21:58:04Z")
> [@spamforbrains](#): > > Why hasn’t anyone challenged the oh-so-obviously discriminatory law that only persons believed to be men have to sign up for the draft? Largely because there hasn’t been a draft since 1973, so no one has any particular reason to push to get the law changed. It’s basically just a minor paperwork hassle, that would get multiple challenges immediately if they tried to make a draft today. There’s already a bill moving through congress to require women to register for selective service, so it really makes no sense for someone to hire lawyers for it. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/73 "2016-05-22T16:01:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This seems slam-dunky to me. Your quotes show why it’s not a universal slam dunk. Those protections are only for institutions **receiving funding** under the acts in question. UNC, for example, has to offer protection according to Title IX. A private business, like a coffee shop near campus, doesn’t. In the realm of unintended consequences for the bill’s proponents, they seem to have created a situation where the only way to comply with both current state law and federal law is to not accept federal funds under acts that include gender identity protections. Ooops. I wonder how much federal funding that would cost the state. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005/74 "2016-05-25T17:37:05Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I would have just bypassed your post, but since you put it into two threads I’ll address it. You declared your interpretation of the terms in the statutes, but I don’t agree with your interpretation and it’s not backed by anything other than ‘you think so’, so I don’t cnsider the point ‘addressed’. You’re one of the people who clearly have a severe bias on this topic, that I’ve spent time arguing with before then decided it wasn’t worth the time, so I’m not going to go back and forth on this with you. I sufficed with a link earlier, but since you’ve now falsely asserted that my position was not based on anything other than ‘you think so’, I’ll repost it here. The fact alone that the DOJ didn’t make that claim in their letter should be enough to give pause, to anyone who actually read the DOJ letter. But if anyone bothered to look up the text of the “gender identity” definition cited in the law they would see the same. The article quotes from the law and gives it as “_gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code)_”. Now you can look that up ([here, for example](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249)) and it says _"(4) the term “gender identity” means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics_". So it’s very clearly not referring to how a person self-identifies, which is the claim the DOJ is putting forth. (The apparent purpose of that clause was to protect someone who was discriminated against based on the perception that they were a woman even though they were not.) More importantly, to the extent that a state can define a person based on their birth certificate (which is not addressed in the statute) then such a person being forced to use the bathroom which aligns with that status is not subject to “discrimination” any more than someone else with the same birth certificate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-experts-us-doj-vs-nc/754005.md?page=3)