Most people in North Carolina are probably familiar with one of the most recent pieces of legislation that's been passed, House Bill 2, otherwise known as the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. For those that aren't familiar with this bill, it was signed on March 23, 2016, in response to a Charlotte ordinance allowing transgender individuals to use whichever restroom they felt they should. However, according Jane Clark Scharl of the National Review, this privilege was extended to anyone who claimed to be a certain gender. Under House Bill 2, not only is this Charlotte ordinance now invalid, but it also allows businesses, corporations, and other such establishments to enforce the use of single occupancy bathrooms based on binary sex assignment. This bill has already become a popular target for controversy; however, we'd like to point out five issues that we have with it.

1. House Bill 2 defines "biological sex" as "the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person's birth certificate" (House Rept. 1).

Biological sex still mostly refers to the binary sexes, male and female. However, this definition excludes intersex people, those who physically do not fit the category of male or female. According to the Intersex Society of North America website, intersex people "might be born appearing to be female on the outside, but having mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside. Or a person may be born with genitals that seem to be in-between the usual male and female types..." This website also states that intersex anatomy can show up during puberty rather than birth. This law, therefore, is not only discriminatory against non-cisgender people (especially transgender people), but also to intersex people who can't control their genetic make-up. Binary sexes should not be the standard for determining laws if they are meant to be for the good of the public as a whole.

2. House Bill 2 defines a "single occupancy bathroom or changing facility" as "a facility designed or designated to be used by only one person at a time where students may be in various states of undress. A single occupancy bathroom or changing facility may include, but is not limited to, a single stall restroom designated as unisex or for use based on biological sex" (House Rept 2).

Again, what about intersex people? They shouldn't be forced to pick a bathroom if there are only two options. Those who are intersex, non-cisgender, or even transitioning from transgender to transsexual shouldn't be forced to conform to the social binary construction if they don't fit it. Just like you can't make a square block fit into a round hole, you can't force someone to conform to social binary constructions if they don't; in both cases, the result is frustration, anger, and unnecessary stress.

3. House Bill 2 also lists "exceptions" to the rule stating that people must use the facility that corresponds with their biological sex. These "exceptions" include: custodians/janitors, maintenance/inspection workers, medical professions providing assistance, teachers/volunteers, and those providing assistance to those who need physical help (House Rept 3).

This is all well and good, but I just want to touch base on the argument presented about transgender persons utilizing the restroom as a ruse to molest women and children. This argument is invalid, aka idiotic. They just want to be able to use the restroom that applies to their gender because they identify as that specific gender. Plus, if a pedophile wants to attempt to assault someone, the rule that is now in place is not going to stop them. It wasn't stopping them beforehand either. This exception in the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act gives the people listed above access to public facilities of either sex, which is a bit hypocritical. It's illegal for someone who identifies as a specific gender to use that designated facility, but it's okay for someone of the opposite sex to walk into these facilities while the other sex is currently utilizing them...logic. Now, I'm not against people helping others who need assistance in the restroom, but I am against hypocritical arguments that insist that transgender people are predators when in reality they are not. They are regular people who just want a safe place to piss like everyone else.

4. Section 3.3 (a) states, "It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all individuals..." (House Rept 5).

This section has a few more sentences after this bit, but I don't think it is necessary to go any further. This section states that all individuals have the right to be protected and safeguarded. Again, all individuals. Everyone should be entitled to basic rights. According to Wade and Marx-Ferree, "Sex-segregated bathrooms are not a biological necessity" (171). So why is using the bathroom even a debate? We all urinate and defecate (yes, even women), so why make it a huge issue? There are more important issues that need to be focused on regarding change in our society than worrying over who gets to urinate where. C'mon people, assert some human decency and start accepting people for who they are, not where they urinate.

5. Section 2.2 of this Act states, "A county may contract with and appropriate money to any person, association, or corporation, in order to carry out any public purpose that the county is authorized by law to engage in" (House Rept 4).

In other words, people can receive monetary compensation for furthering discrimination. This isn't helping our society move forward; it's only pushing us backward in terms of equality for the LGBT* community. If we really want equality for everyone and to help everyone feel safe, discrimination in any form can't be tolerated like this. If nothing else, a gender-neutral bathroom would help accommodate non-cisgender people since society has yet to completely give them their due.

We do recognize some of the reasoning with this law. Some people are afraid that pedophiles and other sexual predators will take advantage of a situation in which people can choose which bathroom to use; however, being non-cisgender does not equal being a sexual predator. Also, as mentioned earlier, this law won't stop predators from going into a bathroom that isn't for their assigned sex (don't believe us? check out #10 in my bathroom article about my encounter with a creeper before this law was passed); this law is just providing a false sense of security for people with that fear.

Overall, we feel that this bill is unnecessary. There are far greater issues that we need to focus on, such as homelessness, hunger, education, and racism. What's really shocking is that the NC legislature had an emergency meeting to enact this law, but when other more pressing matters need tending to, they are debated on anywhere from weeks to years. Society needs to stop focusing most of its attention and energy on matters such as where a person can "do their business" and start focusing on the more important issues.

For more info on the sources we used, you can read the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act itself and the book "Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions" by Lisa Wade and Myra Marx Ferree.