IMHO it’s blow-back against the Obergefell v. Hodges decision (ie. marriage-equality going nationwide)
You may be right about motivations here. (It’s still unclear to me whether these people are referring to transwomen as “men”, or if they just mean that as a practical matter under the Charlotte law anyone walking into a bathroom - trans or cis - can declare themselves to be the gender of their choice and can’t practically be questioned.)
In any event, it remains the case that the law would only be applied to transpeople who looked like their gender identity in cases where others knew them.
From what I’ve seen, the actual cases of people wringing their hands over something like this, all involve public schools. I don’t know about the schools in NC, but even here in Texas most (I think) schools are pretty accepting of trans kids and letting them use the rest room of their choice. This is an upsetting idea to lots of folks who have no life experience with trans people.
Only slightly in jest but, WWCJ* do in NC?
*What Would Caitlyn Jenner.
Few people in America could claim honest ignorance of her transition. Would she be arrested if found using the women’s rest room?
I could be wrong but my recollection is the other way. Meaning most of the big school cases have involved schools who have ruled against the trans kids, but have been overruled by the feds or the courts. e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2015/10/14/school-district-refuses-to-let-transgender-student-use-locker-room-defying-federal-officials/
or https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/justice-dept-sides-with-transgender-student-says-bathroom-policy-is-illegal/2015/07/01/f05b5a22-201c-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html
If you follow those links, it seems pretty clear to me that they don’t accept that a woman who was called male as a child is a woman; they do not believe that transgender is a real thing. The law specifically calls out the sex on the birth certificate and makes no allowances for any other measure of gender.
When you say the law would only be applied to transpeople who looked like their gender identity in cases where others knew them, that’s a bit tricky. The law would certainly apply in all cases to all transpeople, but you’re right it might not be enforced against them. However, a trans person could never be assured of anonymity: for example, a trans woman at a UNC basketball game at the Dean Dome who used the women’s room but who was spotted by someone who knew her could find herself arrested.
On a related note, is it correct that under this law a transgender person who used the “wrong” bathroom would be arrested?
In reading a bit I’m not seeing descriptions of the law making it an arrestable offence to use the wrong bathroom. Just that state-run institutions have to set up single-gender facilities and have their usage determined by birth certificate. That sounds like a law directed at people who run state facilities. I suppose if a trans refused to abide by the rules of the facility they could be arrested for trespassing or something (?), but is that it or is there anything that is specifically directed at bathroom users themselves?
Disgusting that Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest refused to address the point of “what if the law causes just one transgender girl or woman to be molested or assaulted?” I sent him a letter asking him for a comment on that point to use on the air, and he has declined to reply to me.
I’ve spoken personally to District Attorneys and Public Defenders, who have respectively prosecuted and defended sex offenders who have committed crimes in bathrooms. Every one of them I’ve spoken with agreed that laws such as these serve only to victimize transgender people. I had one former Public Defender on my radio show who gave first-hand testimony that in their opinion, no cisgender sex offender will ever be even slowed down by laws like these; rather, the ones she defended got a good chuckle out of these sorts of laws.
I have never been inconvenienced by a transgendered person using a restroom, changing room, or locker room. However I have been stalked, harassed, and attacked by sexual predators who had the phenotype appearance of men who invaded women’s only restrooms and locker rooms. While none tried to use the “I’m transgendered defense” (though I suppose it’s only a matter of time before that also becomes part of a defense lawyers battery of tools) several have tried to use as part of their defense that the space should be unisexual and the authorities (usually university authorities) had no right to bar them from the facilities. Because of those experiences I feel very strongly that the rules baring men with prurient interests entering women only spaces must be enforced. Please note the important phrase “with prurient interests”. A transgendered woman should not have a problem with this. A transgendered woman is not entering the restroom, changing room, etc., for prurient interests.
Here’s the law, and it looks like you’re right: I’m seeing no penalties in the law for going into the “wrong” restroom. I don’t know if penalties exist elsewhere. That’s kind of interesting.
This is just silly, but since it occurred to me…
c. 1920s - bathtub gin
c. 2020s - bathroom gender 
The latter sentence is regrettable, but the thread is about the subject of your first sentence.
Exactly. The problem exists in theory, not in reality. The number of times a woman has been assaulted or harassed in a women’s bathroom by a transgendered woman or a man posing as one is probably smaller than the number of people killed by unicycles. This is simply not something worthy of the legislature’s attention.
I’m as skeptical as the next guy of the dangers of women being assaulted or harassed by transgendered women or men posing as them, but your logic here is flawed.
Even in a theoretical world where this was a legitimate danger, it would also be true that the number of times this has actually happened is extremely low to none. But that’s because until now there have not been laws guaranteeing transgendered men (or cis men pretending to be them) access to women’s bathrooms. The question is about how this might change once laws were put in place guaranteeing them this. What happened before these rights were granted has zero bearing on that question.
[Though again, I personally don’t see this is a serious concern. I just don’t think you can establish this the way you have.]
I’m curious why you would say this. A transgendered woman who was sexually attracted to women would NEVER enter a restroom, changing room, etc., for prurient interests? Is that because there is no record of such happening, or transgendered women are incapable of sexually assaulting someone, or some other reason?
“Zero bearing” is putting it pretty strongly, don’t you think?
Let’s imagine a possible court case: Jesse is charged with some version of a peeping tom law because Jesse (see what I’m doing here?) entered a women’s bathroom and creeped Lydia out. Jesse claims to be a trans woman in early stages of transition. Are the courts stymied?
I don’t think so. Presumably, and some law-speakin types can correct me if I’m wrong, there’d be other things to look at. Has Jesse shown evidence of transition in any other way? Has Jesse spoken with a psychologist about gender dysphoria? Has Jesse spoken of transition to family members or friends? Has Jesse engaged in activities that might indicate transition, such as wearing women’s clothing?
On the other hand, was Jesse peering under the stall wall? Was Jesse’s hands down pants, rubbing vigorously, while staring at Lydia? Has Jesse previously been charged or convicted with a sex offense? Did Jesse discuss, drunkenly, the ogling opportunities afforded by this new law?
All the trans-protection law does is to make a very weak possible defense against certain peeping tom charges, a defense that I’d think an average prosecutor could puncture pretty easily. It’s not out of the question that someone would try to use it to ogle peeing women, but I think we can look at previous pervy behavior and the lack of trying to shield the behavior via similar means, and predict a lack of an epidemic of men in dresses perving in the lady’s room.
Similar to my previous question, how does a trans-protection law make possible a defense against any peeping tom charges other than the change of being in the “wrong” restroom?
I’m not a lawyer either, but I would guess that, as you say, the law does not provide a defense against peeping tom charges. Though not because of your suggestion that a man would need evidence that he’s really a transwoman before beating the rap. Rather, because to my knowledge even being a (cis) woman is not defense against peeping tom charges, even against other women.
But I don’t think the concern is what would happen in court after the fact. It’s about what happens in the bathroom, at the time.
Without any such laws, the norm is that if a guy walks into the women’s room the women there would make a ruckus, and if the guy doesn’t leave they would probably call management or security. (Even if they don’t, people outside the women’s room who see a “man” entering might find it odd and take some sort of action - or at least be more cautious about entering themselves.) So that cuts down on opportunities for pervs to access the women’s room for their skeevy purposes. The notion, FWIW, is that now that people of any appearance can legally access the women’s room without anyone being able to stop them, then it would become more acceptable for people looking like men to access the women’s room and this would encourage people with nefarious intent to do it for their purposes.
Again, I’m skeptical of this claim. But the fact that to this point male pervs have not been accessing women’s rooms by claiming to be transwomen has zero bearing on whether they would try to do this once they have the law behind them.
Without the law, Bob goes into a women’s restroom. The police arrest him, because what else is he doing in there? He says, “I identify as a woman!” The police say, “That’s no defense; we think you were perving.”
With the law, same scenario, the police say, “Let’s see some evidence you identify as a woman.”
I think it’s an extremely weak defense. Or, more accurately, it’s only a defense against the weakest possible charge of peeping tommery.
There are precious few reasons a man would go into a woman’s restroom. Here’s what I can think of:
- Maintenance/custodial or other similar reasons.
- Helping a female relative who really doesn’t want to go into the men’s room.
- The men’s room is completely crowded or completely filthy, and he really has to go NOW.
- Man? Wrong, trans woman.
- He’s a perv trying to get off on being in there.
- He wants to know if there really is a couch in there.
Number six isn’t a good excuse. If Numbers 1-4 are eliminated, #5 starts looking likelier and likelier. The NCGA is equating 4 and 5, which is pretty dang wrong.
I have not been following her case very closely but I recall hearing the Caitlyn Jenner would dress as a woman when on speaking trips in the 80s while living as a man with a wife and family at home.
I think you might be underestimating sexual offenders. I just read a storyabout a guy with a voyeur fetish and he bought a hotel and installed special vents in the ceilings and special viewing areas in the attic to serve his fetish. There are also stories periodically about people finding video cameras in the ladies bathrooms. If someone is willing to do that, putting a wig and dress on an lying about your gender identity is not a huge reach.