Six Reasons North Carolina Got It Right

Lies are born the moment someone thinks the truth is dangerous. Apparently, a good number of business and sports executives think the truth about North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” (HB2) is dangerous, that’s why they are lying about it. Well, perhaps I should be a bit more charitable: some may not be overtly lying about it, but they are expressing their disapproval without knowing what the bill actually does.

On Monday Lt. Governor Dan Forest, who helped call the special session to pass HB2, called the executive in charge at one large protesting company and simply asked if him if he or anyone there had a actually read the bill.

He admitted they had not. They just labeled it “discriminatory” without even reading it.

Who needs the truth when you make so much “progress” by ignoring the truth and engaging in the very bigotry and name-calling you claim to oppose?

The truth is they, like other companies who haven’t bothered to read the bill, are simply taking their marching orders from the misnamed “Human Rights Campaign,” who have the audacity to claim that men have a human right to have access to women and girls in public bathrooms, and that any acknowledgement of the biological differences between men and women is somehow discrimination against people who prefer same-sex relationships.

In the name of diversity, I’d like to offer a different view in six points:

1. All good laws discriminate against behaviors not people. No one is being discriminated against with HB2, which discriminates against the behaviorof a man using the women’s restroom. If any law is wrongly discriminatory it is the bad law passed by the Charlotte City council to create this controversy. It actually discriminates against women and children by making public restrooms unsafe for them. (The ACLU has already filed a lawsuit alleging HB2 does not provide “equal protection” to some folks. Ironically, it’s only because of HB2 that women and children get “equal protection” from predators in public bathrooms!)

2. People are equal, but their behaviors are not. Good laws treat all peopleequally, but not all of their behaviors equally. In fact, the very reason laws exist at all is because all behaviors are not equal and must be treated differently for the benefit of individuals and society. HB2 discriminates against no one who identifies as LGBT. The law merely sets a safe public bathroom use (behavior) for everyone, and keeps employment law consistent across the state (more on this below).

3. Your identity is not in your feelings but your biology. I can’t believe there is actually a need to say this, but many on the Left are living in their own invented reality and they are demanding that we live in it too. The reason we’ve always had separate bathrooms is because of biological sexual differences, not because of feelings or “gender identity.” HB2 simply says that people will use public bathrooms that align with their biological sex as found on their birth certificate.

How could this possibly be controversial? Are we to risk the safety of millions of women and children in public restrooms because an extremely small number of people are experiencing a mismatch between their psychology and their biology? Good public policy does not risk the physical safety of women and children because an extreme few have a preference for a different bathroom.

Moreover, HB2 actually accommodates people who have had so-called “sex change” operations. They can use the bathroom of their choice provided they’ve had their birth certificate changed. It also affects only public restrooms. Companies and other private organizations can adopt any policy they want for their workplace. Does the NBA and the NFL allow men in women’s bathrooms? Does Apple? Cisco? Marriott? Lowes? Then why are they insisting the government force everyone to do so? Why do they think North Carolina is wrongly discriminating when they are doing exactly the same thing in their businesses?

And why aren’t these holier-than-thou folks threatening to pull their business from Iran and Saudi Arabia where they are actually murdering homosexuals? Their moral outrage is not only misdirected, it shows that they’re willing to put women and children at risk by kowtowing to a deceptive special interest group, but they’ll sacrifice nothing to save the people they say they care about by confronting real evil abroad.

4. The danger is real from sexual predators in women’s restrooms. If you don’t think so, then watch this video. Just the first six minutes are chilling enough.

5. Race and LGBT are not the same: Race is not a behavior and race has no impact on someone’s behavior. But homosexuality is a behavior and LGBT political goals are all about imposing certain leftist behaviors on others, from forcing people to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies to allowing men in women’s restrooms.

The Human Rights Campaign also wants to use the strong arm of government to force companies to give employment preference to a long list of sexual orientations. This would mean that someone who claimed a homosexual orientation—or someone who exhibited the behavior of cross-dressing at work for example—would have more job security than John or Jane Doe. How so? Because if a company has to downsize, who are they going to let go—one of the helpless Does, or the person who can bring a costly lawsuit alleging “discrimination”?

6. Opposition to harmful behavior is not bigotry. It is wise. Unfortunately, some on the Left and in business falsely equate opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument the Human Rights Campaign puts out—if you don’t agree with every aspect of LGBT behavior or their political goals, you are somehow bigoted against people who identify that way. If political opposition is bigotry, then the activists at the Human Rights Campaign are bigots for opposing conservatives. The truth is conservatives have good reasons based in public health and safety for not wanting to advocate same-sex marriage or men in women’s bathrooms. But it’s much easier for the Human Rights Campaign to ignore those arguments and call people names.

The truth is just too dangerous.

 


 

Six Reasons North Carolina Got It Right is also featured at TownHall.com

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
72 replies
  1. Brian says:

    Overall I agree in principle to the points above. However, point number 3, regarding identity being biological seems to ignore both our embodied nature and our identity as Christians. A Biblical world view holds that we are not merely animated bodies, but an integration of body and spirit/soul. Thus, our identity is grounded in both the material and immaterial. So to reduce our identity to our biology, I think, is mistaken.

    Given our embodiment, how does one weigh the biological against the spiritual (immaterial, including emotions) when they appear to conflict? I believe, that our immaterial self is much more malleable than our biological self, and therefore, I give more weight to the more stable biological, as does society in most cases. For example, there is a psychological condition termed ‘body integrity disorder’ where a person believes that one or more of their limbs do not belong to themselves. Often these individuals seek out doctors to amputate some of all of their limbs. Physicians typically refuse to amputate a perfectly functional limb, even though the person’s biology is causing them great distress. Instead, the preferred treatment is psychological. That is, in medicine, we give more weight to biology than to psychology. That is, we don’t alter their biology to match their psychology, we believe the opposite is in the best long-term interest of the individual. With the exception of same-sex attraction and gender confusion many are advocating for the opposite, that we alter or ignore the biology and favor the more malleable psychological.

    Reply
  2. Luke says:

    I’ll make two small points, then get on with an actual response.

    1. “On Monday Lt. Governor Dan Forest, who helped call the special session to pass HB2, called the executive in charge at one large protesting company and simply asked if him if he or anyone there had a actually read the bill. He admitted they had not. They just labeled it “discriminatory” without even reading it.”

    Is this original research, or can we get a citation?” Wouldn’t it be right to name the executive, as to not hang the cloud of idiocy on all the executives who opposed this bill? Why protect the one you’re ridiculing, while throwing questions upon those who did the right thing? That makes little sense to me.

    2. “Your identity is not in your feelings but your biology.” Yay! I guess I’m biologically Christian. I think Dr. Turek has just proven Calvin right!

    Anyway…

    I think the people who oppose these “bathroom bills” are often just confused about what they do.

    The link of “transgendered person” to “predator” is wrong and disturbing. Of course transgendered people do things that are wrong. So do gay people. So do straight people. This casual linkage of “transgendered person” to “predator” is wrong, disappointing, and sickening.

    You can hide behind the technicalities of language as much as you wish, but the message here is clear.

    Wrong… Disappointing… Sickening…

    This predator link makes these kinds of arguments hard to respond to. One is tempted to simply say “google Shawn Stinson and tell me that’s who you want to see walking out of the women’s restroom in the mall, while your daughter is in there.” But that’s what this bill mandates, so if that were to happen, you’d be completely wrong to look at Mr. Stinson with any sort of mistrust. You shouldn’t! So it would be wrong to encourage that. (Yes, I know I’m being a bit Ciceronian here.) You’re putting people in a terrible position, then using the discomfort created by the terrible position in which you’ve put them to create distrust.

    Sometimes I wish that No True Scotsman wasn’t a fallacy, because I tell you No True Christian…

    I guess I’ll go back to shaking my head and praying now.

    Luke

    Reply
    • Frank Turek says:

      Luke,
      I spoke to Dan personally.
      I didn’t say any particular orientation was a predator. Where did you get that idea? I simply said that there are sexual predators out there who will hurt women and children. Did you watch the video?

      Blessings,

      Frank

      Reply
      • Luke says:

        1. So who was the executive? Why leave us thinking that many honest men and women may be dishonest idiots? Aren’t you and Dan besmirching the honor of the innocent?

        2. I’m glad you’re not pushing back on your proof of Calvinism. Romans 9 wins; it always does!

        More importantly…

        Frank Turek said: “I didn’t say any particular orientation was a predator. Where did you get that idea?”

        “The law merely sets a safe public bathroom use (behavior) for everyone.”

        “Are we to risk the safety of millions of women and children in public restrooms because an extremely small number of people are experiencing a mismatch between their psychology and their biology?”

        How does that sentence not logically require that “extremely small number” to not be somehow more dangerous?

        Either going to a bathroom that doesn’t match the bathroom designated for the organs you had at birth is inherently dangerous (if so, how?), or you believe that people who wish to go to the bathroom that was designated for organs other than what they had at birth are more likely to be dangerous. One of those things has to be true, or your comments make no sense.

        And yes, I did watch the video. I have to say I had been aware that some people do terrible things, and of the emotional power of selective anecdote. (I grew up behind the iron curtain remember? I have some familiarity with propaganda. It tends to have the reverse of the intended effect on me. He he.)

        Luke

        Reply
        • Frank Turek says:

          Luke,

          The LT. Gov doesn’t reveal who he has private conversations with. It wouldn’t be productive to go public with who anyway.

          And those are about real victims in the video. It is not propaganda.

          Reply
          • Luke says:

            Dr. Turek,

            Why do you skip past my critique of the heart of your post?

            If you take the time to answer at all, why not work on the interesting stuff? I even made sure to note it as “more importantly” to alleviate any confusion.

            (By the way, the best propaganda relies on truth.)

            Thanks,

            Luke

    • Nicole says:

      Respectfully, your replies are putting more into this than necessary. Questioning the research, really? It’s a common sense issue, not even as profound as to be a moral issue. The movement is trying to mimic the civil rights struggle of Blacks, when they are not comparable struggles. This current movement is predicated on psychological ideas of self, rather than biological/genetic. For a logical person this is a no brainer, but we are dealing with highly irrational people. We all have psychological issues, but we don’t all act on them. Why do LGBT get a free pass? I would not receive same treatment from my employer if I came out as a dragon, or 90 year old male pimp. I’d be fired and recommended for treatment. But isn’t it my right to be whatever I feel like I identify as?

      The issue is never going to be the issue with these super philosophical types. They will talk you in circles until you’re exhausted.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        How do you know it’s not biological or genetic? That’s pure assertion on your part. (Saying it’s a ‘no brainer’ is no boast – you’re basically admitting your answer isn’t based on thinking). Seems pretty biological to me. The objection to civil rights comparisons seems to be be based on knowing that popular opinion now rests with black people. 50 years ago people opposed equal rights for blacks – many used religious arguments, and weren’t swayed then by ‘it’s biological and genetic’ arguments.

        Reply
  3. Toby says:

    The danger is real from sexual predators in women’s restrooms.
    If a person has his/her heart set on sexually assaulting someone in a bathroom it doesn’t matter what law is in place saying that a person can go into a bathroom of the opposite sex. That’s why they’re criminals. They don’t follow the laws. I think the initial response to this is an emotional gut reaction without backing evidence. There are countries in Europe with unisex restrooms where both sexes go at the same time and are cleaned by men or women as they are being used.

    Reply
    • Frank Turek says:

      There are people set on raping too, but you don’t make it easier for them by letting them legally enter women’s bathrooms. Did you watch the video?

      Reply
      • toby says:

        Sexual assault encompasses rape. The people in the video are sexual predators but again if they want to assault someone they won’t let a sign on the door that says women only or a law that enforces it stop them. The only reason bathrooms have traditionally been segregated is puritanical fear of nude sexual organs. That and being embarrassed to think someone of the opposite sex might hear you break wind.

        Reply
        • Luke says:

          Toby said: “The people in the video are sexual predators but again if they want to assault someone they won’t let a sign on the door that says women only or a law that enforces it stop them.”

          Toby, laws don’t work when it comes to gun control, for example. That’s where you use the “criminals don’t follow laws” argument. In this case, we like the laws, so we discard that. It takes practice, but you can get better.

          Reply
        • Tim says:

          Toby said: “The people in the video are sexual predators but again if they want to assault someone they won’t let a sign on the door that says women only or a law that enforces it stop them.”

          This argument is nonsensical. Why have laws at all if bad people won’t follow them? Laws deter bad behavior that is the point. Also, if you saw a man walk into a women’s bathroom you wouldn’t you be concerned? If you make bathrooms gender neutral this concern no longer exists.

          Lastly, it’s easy for us as men to say “it is no big deal” but talk to the women in your life and ask them how they feel about this. It’s hard for us as men to fully understand the fear women have even walking around alone at night. 1 out of 6 women have been sexually assaulted.

          Reply
          • toby says:

            This argument is nonsensical. Why have laws at all if bad people won’t follow them? Laws deter bad behavior that is the point.
            I’ll remember this if you ever post anything dismissing laws proposed for gun control. You’re in danger of losing whatever NRA rating you might have.

            Also, if you saw a man walk into a women’s bathroom you wouldn’t you be concerned?
            Not especially, no. There could be some all encompassing plan to such events designed by a supernatural creator.

            Maybe we should just allow prostitution and give sexual deviants a legal outlet to their urges.

          • Luke says:

            Tim said: “Also, if you saw a man walk into a women’s bathroom you wouldn’t you be concerned?”

            So given this, wouldn’t a law that requires people who look like men, and have male organs under their clothes to use the women’s room be a bad idea?

            Thanks,

            Luke

      • Tammy says:

        Yrs because rapists follow the letter of the law. If a man comes into a woman’s restroom and assaults a woman, the Charlotte ordinance did NOT make it legal for him to do so. Do you realize you have likely gone to the bathroom with a transgendered person already? A former female who now lives as a male is going to use the stall in the men’s room if she hasn’t had a sex change. This person looks like a guy and lives like a guy. So now you have made it so this GUY has to use the ladies room. REALLY?! How does that make me feel safe. Same with a guy who used to be a girl. He looks like a female, lives like a female but hasn’t had the sex change. So you now want HER to walk into the men’s room. She is likely to be assaulted. Not a smart move to create HB2. And why do we need a law mandating that everyone treats employees the same. I get having a law setting a minimum but if one city wants to do even better by its employees then they should be allowed to. Republicans just created MORE government instead of their promises to work toward less government. The way republicans called an EMERGENCY session (let me see you do that for teacher pay) and then wouldn’t release the bill for review until that morning shows they know their behavior is questionable and that they might lose if they have enough time for the public to get involved.
        Harmful behavior, specifically sexual predatory behavior, comes mostly from straight men who are not legally allowed to assault anyone whether in a bathroom or not. That argument is ridiculous. Other cities have ordinances like what Charlotte passed and they have not had any issues. So there are precedents showing the law is not harmful.

        Reply
  4. Zachery Pugh says:

    Thank you for this simple breakdown, Frank. I watched about five minutes of the video so far, and you’re right…That’s plenty to understand how sexual predators can abuse the “unisex bathrooms.” I think a short and sweet point that is often overlooked by opponents to the NC bill and the Georgia Bill is just as you say, “All good laws discriminate against behaviors not people.”

    God Bless,

    Zach in South Dakota

    Reply
    • Tammy says:

      A predator is a predator. They do not need a law to do what they need to do. So even though this ordinance made it so a transgendered female (who has a penis) can use the ladies room, it does not make it legal for anyone with a penis to sexually assault anyone, ever. Ever! That will always be against the law.

      Reply
  5. Andy Ryan says:

    Regarding Saudi Arabia and companies that do business there, perhaps these companies simply feel they can make more difference in America than in Saudi Arabia.

    Either way, even if you’ve shown hypocrisy among these companies, I don’t see how this affects the arguments about this law.

    However, I’d be interested to hear your views on laws in countries that punish homosexuals with death. I very rarely hear right wing Christians saying “I disagree with what gays do, but must speak out against laws that have them executed”

    In fact, Frank, recently you tweeted a link to a Michael Brown opinion piece that seemed to SUPPORT these laws. He gave as a reason to oppose Hillary Clinton the fact that some African nation’s strongly oppose her friendliness to LGBT rights. To support this claim, Brown gave a link to quotes from a senior Ugandan politician. From this I can only assume Brown approves of Ugandan laws against homosexuals, which includes putting some of them to death, or executing even non-gays SIMPLY FOR FAILING TO REPORT GAYS TO THE AUTHORITIES.

    Sorry for using caps lock for emphasis, but I thought emphasis was required. Michael Briwn appears to support such laws, and by sharing his article, you seem to support them to. Do you? If not, why give support to Michael Brown’s article? If Brown doesn’t support those laws, why quote the disapproval of the people who enacted those laws as a reason to oppose Hillary Clinton? It would be like quoting Cuban politicians hatred of US press freedom as a reason to oppose Obama.

    Reply
    • Frank Turek says:

      Hi Andy, Michael Brown does not support those laws and neither do I. But that’s not the point of this post. Do you think it is unreasonable or discriminatory to keep men out of women’s restrooms?

      Blessings,

      Frank

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        Frank, it’s a complicated issue.

        1) If we’re starting from the viewpoint that our main priority is protecting children from predators then that in itself doesn’t make me think shared bathrooms are more dangerous – I’d rather take my daughters into the same bathroom as me than send them both alone into another bathroom that a predator could be hiding in.

        2) On the issue of whether we should accommodate trans people when it comes to bathrooms, I would put myself as agnostic on the issue – I’m willing to be convinced either way. I’ve explained above why your ‘predator’ argument doesn’t convince me. Your other reasons just confuse me – why do you bring up race? You say race isn’t a behaviour, but surely neither is gender? Equally, I don’t get the relevance of implying that companies like Apple are hypercritical on this issue – all you’re possibly doing there is pointing out their hypocrisy, which has nothing to do with whether or not North Carolina ‘got it right’.

        With regards to bringing up Michael Brown, I’m interested because you bring up Saudi Arabia as a stick to beat Apple etc, and I’ve seen you write a hundred blogs bemoaning the advancement of LGBT rights, but never once have I see you distance yourself from laws that persecute gays. You can’t even bring yourself to use the three-letter word rather than type out ‘homosexual’ every time! It seems you never met a discriminatory law against gays that you don’t like.

        You say Michael Brown doesn’t support the laws I mentioned, but he wrote:

        “In fact, [Hillary Clinton’s] 2011 speech in Geneva, in which she aggressively pushed America’s gay activism on the world, was so offensive across the continent of Africa that leaders there called it “abhorrent.”’

        He links this article to a quote from John Nagenda, a senior adviser to Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni. And Uganda can execute you for not reporting people you know to be gay to the authorities.

        Why is Brown using this man’s views [“Abhorrent”] to bolster his argument if he doesn’t approve of his views? Brown is saying, effectively that we should disapprove of Clinton because her stance on gays is in opposition to those of a man who thinks failing to report gays to the police should warrant the death penalty. The only way I can parse this is to figure that Brown backs Nagenda’s views. And you shared Brown’s article in a way that I can only assume meant that you approved of Brown’s view.

        If you’re saying that you both reject Uganda’s laws then I’d suggest you withdraw your approval of Brown’s article and I’d suggest Brown is more careful about who he cites in his articles to back up his arguments.

        Reply
        • Luke says:

          Dr. Turek,

          I’ll second the request for some clarification to your views on this.

          I’ll also add, if your response is “I don’t support laws that execute those who engage in homosexual behavior”, I would ask do you think such laws are morally wrong (and why)? Or do you think the laws are morally acceptable, but not required?

          Thanks,

          Luke

          Reply
          • Louie says:

            Based on what I know about Frank, you only need to go read the bible and see what Jesus does in similar situations to get Franks view on this. The adulterous woman Jesus dealt with, was a somewhat similar situation, and He only said; “Let him without sin cast the first stone.” You don’t kill people for sinning, you offer them help.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Louie, I didn’t ask what Jesus’ views were or what the Bible said on the issue. I asked why Michael Brown was citing the views of the Ugandan senior adviser as ones we should follow and why Frank was endorsing Michael Brown’s article.

            “You don’t kill people for sinning”

            Do you think not reporting gay people you know to the authorities is a sin?

  6. Lindy Loo says:

    Due to the fact that OneNewsNOW DELETES 99% of my comments to their site, I decided to send my response to your outstanding commentary entitled: “Six reasons North Carolina Did it Right” to this CrossExamined.org site so you can read what I thought of what you wrote. Here’s what I said:
    Dear Mr. Dear Mr. Turek, may I congratulate you on an excellent, specifically defined article! Your statement that “Race is not a behavior and race has no impact on someone’s behavior” is what I’d refer to as “Divine inspiration” and a perfect response for those who dread or even fear being called a Racist for objecting to such repulsive “behavior.” I’ll read your article again and again and share this valuable information with my biologically female friends. If any time in the future I encounter such a situation in a public restroom, I’ll have logical, legitimate objections concerning the “behavior” of a “non-biologically female” person who may insist I validate his pathetic pretense of being a woman. If logic doesn’t settle the issue, I’ll ask for his birth certificate!!

    Reply
  7. Lindy Loo says:

    Dear Mr. Turek, how long does CrossExamined.org take to “critique” someone’s post? Is your “editing” process performed by Disqus? If so, I already know my comments/opinion about this article will not be posted here! So much for “Freedom of Speech” from (supposedly) Conservative sites. 🙁

    I posted my comments/compliments about this article on OneNewsNow and it was deleted there also. I give up. Just tell me how to UN-subscribe. Thank you.

    Reply
  8. John B. Moore says:

    The law is discriminatory against people whose gender identity differs from the sex listed on their birth certificate. I think everyone can agree on this point. The whole disagreement is about whether such people should be given special accommodation, or whether such people even exist at all.

    Sex is a complex thing, and it’s not true that everyone falls clearly into one box or the other, male or female. It’s not true physically, and certainly not psychologically. Christians need to confront these objective facts about the world and apply Christ’s teachings appropriately.

    Unfortunately, many Christians are trying to deny the objective biological facts about sex, either from ignorance, fear or hatred. Be strong, ye Christians! Don’t be overcome by ignorance, fear or hatred.

    Reply
    • Tim says:

      John, the biological facts about sex is that you are either male or female and that is reflected by your biology. People psychologically thinking something different doesn’t change their biology. For example, if I thought was a Hispanic man that would not change the biological fact that my DNA says something completely different. You are saying a person’s biology is subjective based on how we feel and not objective based on what is shown in our DNA.

      Reply
        • Tim Taylor says:

          John, you’re trying to use an outlier to prove a point but you are still failing to realize that your arguments are based on subjectivity. In regards to hermaphrodites, I am aware they exist and have no ill feelings towards any of them. But this is not the point of this article. You can just call people that don’t agree with you haters or ignorant but that doesn’t change the fact that your reasoning is faulty. This is apparent because you failed to address any of my arguments.

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            Tim, the point is that, outlier or not, hermaphrodites show that your claim ‘You’re either female or not’ is false. We only have to show one exception to show that other options are possible. With hermaphrodites it’s physically obvious. With trans people it’s not so clear cut, but you can’t rule out in principle that they too rest outside your male/female dichotomy, as we’ve already shown that it’s a false dichotomy.

  9. Luke says:

    John said:Unfortunately, many Christians are trying to deny the objective biological facts about sex, either from ignorance, fear or hatred. Be strong, ye Christians! Don’t be overcome by ignorance, fear or hatred.

    Not all us John.

    Reply
  10. Josef Kauzlarich says:

    Dr. Turek,

    Thank you for a wonderful summary. I notice no one here is commenting on your point that protecting men in women’s bathrooms (or vice versa) is discriminatory against females. It’s amazing how the majority who will use these bathrooms ? My wife is adamantly opposed to men in the restroom. Her concern is not transgenders. She and I both believe this group wouldn’t be the concern. Her concern is men using the cover of this law as an excuse to hang around and in women’s restrooms.

    Thanks for bringing some common sense to this issue.

    Reply
      • Luke says:

        Hi Josef,

        I think my comments touched on this, but I didn’t say much. I’ll be glad to now, since you seem to have solicited comment. I’m just not sure how your or your wife’s concerns are not actually made worse by the NC bill and those like it.

        Please google Shawn Stinson (a person I mentioned above). Be honest, do you think this belongs in the men’s restroom, or the women’s restroom?

        Do the same for Aydian Dowling. Should this person go to the women’s room?

        Or you can google Charlie Comero, who printed up cards to hand to women in the restroom which say: “I’m following the law that was passed on March 23rd. I am a transgender man who would rather be using the men’s room right now. This is likely uncomfortable for both of us.”

        Can you honestly say it’s better and more comfortable for your wife to share she restroom with Charlie? That this is her preference?

        I actually get the idea that it’s uncomfortable for some to share a restroom with the opposite sex. I understand that meeting someone who looks like a man in the women’s restroom may be uncomfortable for some (many) women. If this law were followed (I’m sure many will ignore it), you’d have way more of these uncomfortable encounters.

        If the thing that you are trying to prevent is stalking the women’s restroom, shouldn’t that be the thing that is made illegal? (If wanting to prevent bank robberies, do you think it is better to outlaw robbing banks, or to outlaw ski masks?)

        Note that this is a civil, not criminal law. In other words, this behavior is still not a crime under the law discussed here. You say your wife is concerned with a law like Charlotte passed allowing men cover to just hang out in the women’s room. If someone intends harm (and violation of privacy is a harm), do you honestly think this law will stop them?

        Yet, now that we have a law that forces what we all would view as men into women’s bathrooms (like the man who hands out the cards, mentioned above), this will become (more) commonplace. Doesn’t that make it harder to distinguish someone who doesn’t belong? If your wife finds a man in the women’s bathroom, How is she to know whether it’s someone with an “F” on their birth certificate (i.e. someone who now “belongs”), or a creeper? Honestly, how will she know? (And if she calls the authorities — who are limited in power, since it’s not a criminal offense — and it turns out it is a birth-certificate-female — hasn’t she ended up harassing an innocent person just following the law?

        I’m open to arguments about how this law makes your wife safer or more comfortable. Please share them with me. With what I know now, it’s only made things worse.

        (Yes, a very quick take on this law will yield a “yeah, makes sense” response from me. It sounds good. It sounds right. It sounds logical. It’s when you think about what it actually does and the real world consequences that you realize that it just makes things worse and makes life difficult for a lot of innocent people.)

        I look forward to your comments. I’ve tried to highlight my questions for ease. All but one (I believe) are yes/no or a/b questions, so it should be easy.

        Thanks,

        Luke

        Reply
        • Josef Kauzlarich says:

          Very interesting people there 🙂 I’ve already expressed our concern is not peaceful transgenders. Those two people you told me to look up…if they walk in a men’s room, no one would notice anything, unless there are communal showers or changing rooms. It’s obvious from Dr. Turek’s video that men dress up as women all the time to sexually assault women. These people are my concern. Your thought is that these people would harm people regardless of law, and you are probably right. However, establishing laws that gives them a cover for walking into a women’s restroom doesn’t make sense. Under this type of law, they don’t have to put any women’s clothes on. They can walk into a woman’s gym locker room under the guise of being transgender, expose themselves to women, shower with them in communal showers and those women are helpless to do anything about it. All he would have to claim is, “I’m transgender and starting sex change treatment next month.” Teenage boys can claim sexual confusion and walk in a high school girl soccer team showering and changing. Think of how easy it is to hide cameras now as well. Who knows what men will do with them if protected by law. I’m sorry this just doesn’t sound safe to me. The majority of women (and men) deserve protection of their privacy. I think this limits the privacy of the majority and creates more opportunity for sexual predators to act on their inclinations.

          Reply
          • Luke says:

            Josef said:“Those two people you told me to look up…if they walk in a men’s room, no one would notice anything”

            Josef, this law FORCES them into the WOMEN’S ROOM!!!

            I am sorry for “yelling”, but this is precisely the point. Of course they belong in the men’s room! Yet with this law, these two two people, who you agree belong in the men’s room can no longer use it!

            You are arguing for a law that forces them to use the SAME RESTROOM AS your wife!

            It seems clear you misunderstood this, so I won’t reply to your post further and look forward to your reply to my questions now that this has been clarified.

            Thanks,

            Luke

  11. Josef Kauzlarich says:

    Luke, I perfectly understood. No I don’t agree they SHOULD be in the men’s room. I simply think men wouldn’t notice that these were women and that they COULD get by without being noticed if they wanted. I’m not worried about this almost irrelevant percentage of people that look so alike the other gender and could get by with breaking the law (unless they have a history of sexual misconduct). But say they obey this law and use the ladies room. I think women would find it strange but wouldn’t be put off unless these folks endangered them because they know they are a woman. I have seen transgender men in restrooms before. It never feels strange to have them in there with me just because they identify as a women. They are biologically a male which to me means they are very confused men (but that is a different conversation). Point is, we shouldn’t pass a law that gives a cloak to sexual predators in the name of making a tiny group of people who made these choices happy (but their ability to choose is yet another conversation). It violates the rights of the overwhelming majority who identifies with their biological sex. Next we’ll be passing laws that allow people who identify as animals to use kennels. It doesn’t make sense.

    Reply
  12. Luke says:

    Josef,

    I think it would have been good of you to have answered my questions. I’m somewhat confused by what you’re saying (it seems to me that your stated solution steers us father away from your stated goals, but it seems that perhaps I just don’t understand something).

    Josef said:“I’m not worried about this almost irrelevant percentage of people that look so alike the other gender and could get by with breaking the law.”

    So you expect people to break the law, perhaps even encourage them to? Your solution is to turn innocent people into law-breakers?

    Josef said: “But say they obey this law and use the ladies room. I think women would find it strange but wouldn’t be put off unless these folks endangered them because they know they are a woman.”

    (I’ll ignore the issue of your speaking for a large number of women.) I find this difficult to respond to. I’m just failing to understand what you’re trying to say here, because what I read in the words makes no sense to me (probably my failing, not yours).

    Let me start with this.

    You say:” I think women would find it strange but wouldn’t be put off unless these folks endangered them because they know they are a woman.” (emphasis added)

    How do they know exactly?

    This is perhaps a key point for me. If someone who looks like a man enters the bathroom two steps after your wife how does she know what is written on their birth certificate?

    Please explain this to me, because I have no grasp or idea whatsoever.

    Let’s looks at it this way: A person who looks like a man to everyone and has the organs we associate with men underneath their clothes walks into a bathroom. They don’t do anything that “endangers” anyone.

    This is okay with you; is this is totally fine?

    It seems to me that your answer is:

    Yes, if they have an F on their birth certificate.
    No, if they have an M on their birth certificate.

    Surely you will admit that your wife cannot tell what is on a person’s birth certificate by looking at them.

    So how will she know if what has just occurred was okay or not?

    How will she know! Are you pinning your hopes that the good people will break the law (you seemed to imply this above). I’ll submit that any plan that starts with “the good and innocent people will break the law” is self-evidently misguided.

    Now that your wife because of this law has to accept that people who look like men and have male organs will be in the bathroom with her, how can she know if they are there because they are following the law, or if they are there because they find it exciting to know they are so close to a woman with her unmentionables down near the floor?

    She can’t know!

    And this is a good idea to you?

    If people like the three I asked you about are able to use the restroom with people who look like them, with organs that match theirs, they would be out of the restroom with your wife. If she did see someone who looked like a man, she would be able to think “something strange is going on!” and NOT “It could be that something strange is going on, or it could be a nice person following the law; I don’t know”

    How is a law that leads to “It could be that something strange is going on, or it could be a nice person following the law; I don’t know” a good idea? How does taking away a tool to discern danger encourage safety?

    I understand your concern about someone who is just a creeper using a “tolerance” law to say “I feel like a woman today” to get into a women’s bathroom. (Though I don’t think this is a real concern, I’m completely willing to now accept it now for the sake of argument.) My point is that with a tolerance law, people like Shawn, Aydian, and Charlie, can go to the men’s room. So if someone that looks like a man enters the women’s room, you wife and others can know that something out of the ordinary is going on. They can get their guard up. They can leave!

    Now, with a law like North Carolina has just passed, it is not only legal, but legally required that some people who look like men and have male organs go to the women’s restroom. Under this law, your wife or another woman has no way of knowing if the person in the women’s room who looks like a man is a creeper, or forced there by the law.

    The law is stripping women of a tool that can help keep them safe.

    Please answer this question honestly: Imagine that you were a creeper; imagine that you enjoyed the idea of women being naked a couple of feet away from you in the next stall, wouldn’t a law like this — a law that not only gives you perfect pretense to be in a women’s room (though you look like a man), but also gives you the ability to print out cards (like Charlie from the CNN story) — to sit a foot or two from your victim while she’s exposed, then to walk out of the stall, to look your victim in the eye, to maybe touch their hand as you give them the card, and know that as they leave, they’re just thinking you’re a poor, innocent, nice person who’s forced into an uncomfortable situation by the government — isn’t this law a dream for creeper you? (Not real you, imagined creeper you!) You get to not only creep on them, you get eye contact, maybe a little touch, and they think you’re a nice person! (And the best part is, on the off chance you get caught — it’s just a civil offense, so you won’t be in any real trouble. It is literally a creeper’s dream law.

    Before when creeper you walked into a restroom, women were like “whoa, something is wrong here”. Now, other people who look like men HAVE to be in the women’s room, now creeper you is no longer weird. The government (with Dr. Turek’s support) have given creeper you the perfect disguise and the perfect excuse to get even closer to your victims.

    The idea that this law makes anyone safer is at best misguided, it is fairly called a joke, and at worst supporters of this law are willing to put women in danger just to make life more miserable for the transgender community.

    Josef, you seem like a smart and caring person. To me, now that I’ve thought through it, it is soooooooooooo clear that this law makes life both more uncomfortable and more dangerous for your wife, my wife, and my children (who would have a hard time defending themselves in the bathroom).

    Let me ask this… I don’t know if you have kids (I do), but let’s say you have a daughter. She wants to use a public government-run restroom in North Carolina. Do you tell her:

    a. Honey, if you see a man in the women’s restroom — leave.
    b. Honey, if you see what looks like a man in the women’s restroom, they may have been born a woman, so they should be in the women’s restroom, so it’s okay, unless they do something that you feel endangers you. If that happens, leave. Otherwise, it’s cool.
    Something else?

    I will submit to you that I think a is the better choice. If you choose a, while still forcing people like Shawn and Charlie into the women’s room, you’ve done nothing but make innocent people subject to suspicion and being uncomfortable, while endangering those who feel that b is the best response, because b is more true. (How dehumanizing would it be to see people leave the restroom the law forces you into every time you enter? That’s terrible, to have people treat you with such suspicion. It’s terrible, but it’s still what I would tell my daughter to do, but I would curse the law that forces her to make people feel that way.)

    Anyway, this is so clearly a bad idea to me if we have any concern for safety (and comfort). It’s as clear to me as the answer to: “hey, do you think it’s safer to jump from the first, or twentieth floor window?”. But like I said, you seem smart, decent, and thoughtful. If I’m wrong, I’d like to know how and why. I really hope that you’ll answer my questions so that I can better understand what you’re saying. (So far, I understand that you want your wife to be safe, and she doesn’t mind going to the bathroom with people who look like men and have male organs, if they were born with female organs. But I don’t understand why you think this law makes her safer, or why going to the bathroom with people who look like men and have male organs is preferable to her. I do get that you said they should just break the law, which I already asked about above. I absolutely agree with you that “we shouldn’t pass a law that gives a cloak to sexual predators” but I hope that I’ve laid out a good case as to how and why the North Carolina state law is a predator’s dream. I’ll be happy to see a refutation, but for now, that’s as clear to me as anything.)

    Thanks, if anything, I’ve appreciated the opportunity to research and think through this issue.

    Luke

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “So if someone that looks like a man enters the women’s room, you wife and others can know that something out of the ordinary is going on. They can get their guard up. They can leave!”

      Luke, this reminds me of open carry laws. In my country if someone who isn’t a policeman is carrying a gun, they are almost certainly a criminal up to no good. Everyone knows this – if you see a person with a gun, then criminal activity is going on, so get your guard up: run away, call the police etc. But in America, you just don’t know. And with open carry laws, a person could be swaggering around openly carrying a weapon and you don’t know if they’re about to start shooting everyone or if they’re just idiots trying to prove a point about their ‘open carry’ rights.

      I often hear “If you outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns”. This is supposed to be an argument AGAINST outlawing guns, but (leaving aside that the police can still carry them either way) it instead makes me think “Yes, and that makes the outlaws very easy to spot – they’re the ones who are packing”.

      Reply
      • Luke says:

        @Andy — Yup!

        (By the way, if Trump wins, my daughter has made plans for the family to move the Isle of Wight. Maybe we can share a country soon.)

        Reply
        • Josef Kauzlarich says:

          Luke,

          I have been sloppy and confused you.

          1) I don’t want people to break the law. I was only pointing out that in such extreme transformations, no one would notice or question anyway. I will also agree that my thinking was shallow in regard to how my wife would react to women who look like men entering the restroom. She would freak out I’m sure. I was basing it off my own experiences encountering men who looked almost like women. This isn’t the correct comparison. I have changed my thought (to one you will dislike even more). See below.

          2) Based on your presented scenario (ya know me as a perp…lol), it presents this as a lose-lose situation, for I am not convinced that there isn’t a real danger of predators using a anti discrimination law as a cover. I’m surprised this is of so little concern to you as a husband and father…are you just hoping for the best? Help me understand you lack of concern because I don’t get it. I think this is the greater danger than what you describe. Charlie (the example) can change her birth certificate. It might be inconvenient and frustrating, but it is self imposed by her choice to switch genders. It was inconvenient for my wife to switch her name, but she did it when she chose to marry me. Also, she should also have been checked or investigated for these encounters and encouraged to change her birth certificate immediately…which maybe she was and is why it made news lol. Point is, if you look like a man in a women’s room, you should be questioned. If it makes you uncomfortable, change your birth certificate as the law allows.

          3) Forcing a chang on birth certificates will cause bad feelings in transgenders and will appear discriminatory to them and I trully feel bad about that. But it is the governments job to protect people. We are talking about an almost negligible amount of people when compared with the interests and safety of the larger population. I really feel for these people, but sense this law is a good step. Contrast it to MD where I can walk into any ladies room and I can’t even be questioned. I can look exactly like myself and just tell women I feel like a woman. I can wait outside a public restroom for a woman of interest to enter and follow her in not caring who might see me because oh its perfectly ok. The freedom for a predator is much greater in MD than NC.

          I read you entire post and still disagree. We’ll both just have to wait and see how it plays out in various states.

          Reply
          • Luke says:

            Josef,

            You asked me about what seemed to you like a lack of concern about predators. You said: “m surprised this is of so little concern to you as a husband and father…are you just hoping for the best? Help me understand you lack of concern because I don’t get it. ”

            I’m not sure why it came across that way.

            I wrote a rather lengthy post about why and how I believe this law makes people less safe. I worry about people being less save precisely because I am concerned. I laid out the mechanism of how this law makes people less safe. I expressed concern in saying what I would tell my kids to do, specifically saying that I would ask my daughter to act in a way that an innocent person could find dehumanizing because I have concern. (I don’t typically ask my kid to act in potentially hurtful ways, but here I did, and it is because I’m concerned.

            So on one level, I’m confused as to how you reached this conclusion.

            I did state briefly that I didn’t think someone saying “I’ll just say I’m a woman today to get into the women’s restroom” did not seem to me like a real concern. I said this for a couple of reasons. First of all, I think if someone is a predator, this law does nothing to stop them (it’s not a criminal statute, and it’s not aimed at bathroom using individuals). I just cannot think of a single reason of why this law would stop anyone intending to do harm. So it’s not so much that I am unconcerned, it’s just that I think if someone seriously intends to do harm, I can think of no real reason for this “I feel like a woman today” to be part of the plan. Imagine for a second that your wife goes to the bathroom and sees a random man there and however it happens, the man tells her “I am in here because I feel like a woman today.” It’s not as if your wife is going to walk out thinking “Oh yeah, that makes sense. That was a totally normal thing that just happened.” Such a statement would likely do nothing but raise suspicion. Would it not be much more believable and normal for the man to act embarrassed and say “I’m sorry, I walked into the wrong bathroom.” This is the kind of thing that actually happens. After this interaction, your wife would probably tell you “something funny happened to me today.” (Even if this did concern your wife, I can think of no reason it would concern her more than the “I feel like a lady today” story.)

            So I just think this “I’m a woman today” idea is not in any way helpful to a predator in my opinion. If you can give me a plan of how someone commits a crime, and this ability to make this excuse is integral to the plan, I may well change my mind.

            Thanks,

            Luke

  13. Katherine says:

    Actually, the bill is discriminatory. It allows businesses to hire and fire based on one’s gender identity and sexual orientation. Aside from that, others who didn’t think this bill effected them will soon find out that it actually does. It’s not just taking rights away from those within the LGBT community, but good old regular people too. This blog is just another twist of the facts and truth. I’ve read the bill. I suggest those who haven’t do so and pay very close attention to the details. They effect all of you.
    http://wncn.com/2016/04/01/nc-woman-suing-for-age-discrimination-gets-caught-up-in-hb2-bill-fallout/

    Reply
  14. Lawrence Tanner says:

    You chastised people for allegedly not reading the bill, yet you clearly have not read the bill.Or you choose to ignore large portions of it.

    The new law actually prohibits anyone from suing their employer in state court over discrimination in the workplace. Not just if they are discriminated against because of sexual preference or gender identity issues, but the law prohibits, explicitly and by name, lawsuits for workplace discrimination based on AGE, GENDER, RACE, and a whole host of other reasons. Fired because you’re 50? Can’t sue in state court because that’s now a protected action. Not promoted because you’re a woman? Sorry, state now says that’s okay. Paid less because you’re black? Sorry, that’s okay in North Carolina now.

    The new law forbids any local government from setting a workplace minimum wage higher than the federal level now. Charlotte, which is on the border of the two Carolinas and often competes with cities in South Carolina, can’t set a city-wide minimum wage any higher than $7.25 now.

    Local governments can no longer require contractors to pay its workers higher than minimum wage, nor can local governments only do business with contractors who offer sick leave and other benefits to their workers — yes, that’s in the new law as well.

    This is far from a ‘bathroom” or “sexual identity” law. It’s an example of state government outlawing practices that are protected by the Constitution.

    Even if it were ONLY about the Charlotte public restroom issue, it would still be wrong because it’s another sterling example of the North Carolina General Assembly far, far overreaching its authority, meddling in strictly local issues. Listen, I think the Charlotte bathroom law is ludicrous, is wrong-headed and I’d hope the people of Charlotte would demand the city council there repeal the law or be voted out of office.

    But that’s an issue for Charlotte, not an issue for the General Assembly. This state government has done this over and over — stepping in and forcing a city to redraw its city ward boundaries to force city council in to a GOP-friendlier make-up; stealing a water and sewer system from a city that built it; trying to steal an airport from a city; and a host of other measures.

    Sorry to go on like this,but I’m so tired of people writing articles, like this one, on the so-called bathroom law without any clue to what the law really does and without any context to what’s really happening…ironic the writer of this article talks of truth…

    Reply
  15. Richard Rivette says:

    While I agree with this bill, and the premise about the bathrooms, I think we have missed another protection the state offers municipalities. The Federal government recently threatened to withhold (not allowed to do so but they did) $6 million from a local school district because they would not allow a teenage boy to shower with the teenage girls. When they offered him (who identifies as a her but is anatomically a boy) a private shower in the coaches area where he could lock it and clean in private, the family and outside groups sued and said it was unacceptable. How can this be? The agenda is not about the privacy of the individual or he should have just showered alone. This was another way the socialist mind can impose itself on everyone else by breaking down barriers. Once teenage girls must shower with this boy their own security, privacy and ability to even shower at all comes into question. People who seek a common sense compromise would say the private shower offer was enough. So would a competent judge. But that isn’t what happened.

    It is time for patriots in this nation to step up, put their foot down and demand common sense. For the ,001 percent who believe they are the wrong gender, let’s do our best to accommodate them with family bathroom areas (separate from men’s and women’s rooms as they do in many malls) and offer a separate shower in schools where possible. OR just have them boy WAIT ten minutes until the girls are done, THEN he can use their shower. I mean, COME ON! We do this at camp for women and men leadership. The women have a set schedule, the men a different one. This is not brain surgery.

    Stop the liberals at the gates. They have all but destroyed common sense. Enough is enough. Stand up to the bullies who want to degrade the privacy of women and children. As a man, I really don’t give a rat’s behind if a woman is next to me in a men’s stall. It is a stall. If she tries to pee standing up good luck with that. But in a shower, sorry, I draw a line. Period. She can shower elsewhere. Don’t even try it.

    These bleeding hearts have gone completely mental.

    Reply
  16. David says:

    Sad how Christians go straight to the conclusion that gays and transgenders are more prone to being predators. Just to be even handed maybe one of your contributors could write an article championing separate restrooms for priests to protect little boys from predators.

    Reply
  17. Andy Ryan says:

    1) Seems to me that saying ‘What if a guy just says they feel like they’re a woman some day’ is similar to ‘What if someone doesn’t want to do their job just because they feel like they’re a Christian some day’. It’s very dismissive to boil it down to ‘they just felt like it one day’, and doesn’t in any way reflect the reality of the experience of being transgender. It’s the same as referring to someone who reached a religious view after years of contemplation – “Oh, they just felt like they’re a Christian today”

    2) If anyone here is genuinely concerned about predators, and isn’t just using that as a smokescreen to get one over on LGBT rights, don’t you think that this ruling could actually provide protection for predators? If someone who was born a woman but now looks in every way like a man is forced by this ruling to use women’s toilets, that means any straight predator man can walk into a woman’s toilet claiming to have been born a woman, saying ‘Hey, I’m forced by law to use the ladies’ bathrooms!’

    3) Are any supporters of the bill going to address the points made by others here such as Lawrence Tanner that it also permits discrimination on the basis of race? If Lawrence is wrong, please explain to us why.

    Reply
  18. Josef Kauzlarich says:

    Hey Luke,

    You said, “First of all, I think if someone is a predator, this law does nothing to stop them (it’s not a criminal statute, and it’s not aimed at bathroom using individuals). I just cannot think of a single reason of why this law would stop anyone intending to do harm.”

    I agree on this point. If someone wants to do harm they will. But to me, bills like the one passed in MD increase the opportunity for this harm to occur. In MD, I can now in the sight of all watching enter into a woman’s restroom perfectly legally and violate the privacy of women. At a gym, I can walk through and change in the ladies room with other women and claim protection under this law because I’m transgender after all. I can take a camera that is tiny and hard to see, get hours of footage in bathrooms on unsuspecting women…all because I put on a dress and can’t be questioned. I can think of how the cover of this law gives great scope increase to predators.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      ” I can now in the sight of all watching enter into a woman’s restroom perfectly legally and violate the privacy of women”

      Josef, it wouldn’t be legal for you to do this because you’re not transgender. If your argument is that you could lie and CLAIM you are, you might as well say that in North Carolina a man can lie and claim to be transgender (i.e. born a woman) and walk straight into a women’s bathroom.

      Predator: “Hi, don’t worry, I was born a woman so I am FORCED by this North Carolina law to use the ladies’ bathrooms. Sure, I know I look like a man, and believe me I would much prefer to use the men’s room, but because I was born a woman I HAVE to use the women’s bathrooms. Crazy law, eh?”

      So in practical terms the North Carolina law gives no greater protection from predators. All it means is that instead of claiming to be a man who is transitioning to a woman, a predator instead will claim they’re a woman who is transitioning to a man.

      Reply
      • Luke says:

        Right Andy, and as I argued above, this scenario (I was born a woman, but transitioned into a man; the law forced me here) actually makes it both easier and more effective to violate privacy and perhaps do worse, because you now have a reason to get close to a woman, and if you’re convincing, she’ll actually walk away thinking you’re a nice person in a bad situation. Josef has done nothing to refute that, and even admitted that my scenarios are at least as dangerous (he said “this as a lose-lose situation”). This is an admission that this law does nothing to alleviate danger, which is a denial of Dr. Turek’s claim that this law makes things more dangerous. (Again, no one has made any arguments detailing a mechanism of how the Charlotte law made people less safe, not how the state law makes things more safe. In my mind, I’ve argued the opposite pretty persuasively with concrete examples and methodologies.)

        Josef, I have made arguments as to why this law makes people less safe. I’ve already answered why your concerns are made worse by this law, and why the “I feel like a woman today” argument does not really make sense or aid a predator. At this point, I’m inclined to give you the last word. Thanks.

        ps
        I do have one question, you said: “Forcing a change on birth certificates will cause bad feelings in transgenders and will appear discriminatory to them and I truly feel bad about that. ”

        This is not something I’ve heard. I’ve have heard the opposite case, where people really wish they could change their birth certificate, but can’t because the state bureaucracy makes it far too difficult (and the requirements are onerous, basically leaving it as an option for the affluent). In other words, I’ve heard of many people that wish they could do this, but can’t do so practically.

        Why do you think this would appear discriminatory to transgender people?

        I guess you present something that is the reverse of my experience and the long form journalism I’ve read — I admit my knowledge somewhat limited, so I’m not surprised I’m wrong, so I’d like to learn more.

        Thanks,

        Luke

        Reply
        • Josef Kauzlarich says:

          Luke,

          Actually I said you present this as a lose-lose based on you scenario 🙂 I then submitted an alternative by which people who clearly appear as men in ladies restrooms should be investigated. Charlie should have been checked. And perhaps she was.

          To answer your other question, if I look like a woman entering a mens room and some man takes issue with this and I get investigated…that would make me feel discriminated against (largely because transgenders don’t think they have a choice on their gender preference). I don’t enjoy making people feel bad in general. That’s all I meant.

          You also said the process was difficult for getting a birth certificate changed. I assumed otherwise in my last post to Andy. However, I would hope NC would make this easier for transgenders to accomplish given this passed law. Otherwise this aspect is unfair.

          Reply
      • Josef Kauzlarich says:

        I get it. You and Luke both hold this position. I say the fix is easy, investigate these people and make a determination. It won’t take long for the small population of transgenders to get their birth certificates changed. Yes you will scream discrimination, but since changing genders is based on a personal choice, it isn’t unreasonable to ask people who change their gender to change their birth certificate. It isn’t that hard. Women getting married change their names. Its a similar process. You want to be a woman, be a woman.

        I also find the greater danger in laws like that recently passed in MD.

        Reply
        • Josef Kauzlarich says:

          Thought it best to provide a link.

          http://equalitymaryland.org/get-the-facts-about-senate-bill-212/#BM3

          I think you both (Andy and Luke) will like this bill better. But I hate this bill. All I have to accomplish under this law is to convince whatever immediate powers at be, say an officer or a manager, that I identify as a woman and thus they can’t discriminate against me for being in the ladies room. This opens up a world of possibilities for predators to act (for their actions aren’t just exposure and rape). Cameras are small.

          Thank you both.

          Reply
  19. Evan says:

    What’s especially hurtful about these arguments is that the number of cases of cis-men posing as transgender females is practically non-existent when compared to the number of trans women who face a real threat from being forced to use the men’s room (as Mr. Turek wants to legally require of them). Mr. Turek is suggesting a course of action that would definitely result in more assault against women, not less. For that matter, HB2 also forces more awkward bathroom encounters, as the bill would require trans men to share the bathrooms with women, when neither party wants this. This would include bearded, muscular trans men.

    In short, these arguments appeal to an extreme minority threat (cis-men posing as trans-women) to justify dramatically increasing both incidents of assault against trans women, and requiring trans men to use the women’s room. Why?

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      I’m also guessing there’s a big crossover between people who support this law because they claim they’re worried about the safety of young girls, and people who think young children should share bathrooms with adults openly carrying loaded guns.

      Reply
  20. Rod says:

    Hello Dr. Turek – I recently listened to your podcast on “Six Reasons North Carolina Got it Right.” The fact that this is even an issue confirms that some people have gone completely insane in the country. Nonetheless, I am a regular reader of Mises.org (a libertarian economic website) and this was today’s article – I think you will find their points interesting…

    https://mises.org/blog/we-need-separation-bathroom-and-state

    Nonetheless, I enjoy your podcasts immensely – keep up the God work!

    Blessings to you,

    Rod

    Reply
  21. Asron says:

    If you are trying to protect women and children, make a law stating it is illegal to impersonate a woman (or man) for the purpose of gaining access to a bathroom of opposite sex. To make the law as stated is an indirect way to address that is really dumb. And it is really the dennis hasterts and sanduskys doing the majority of the harm here and this law does nothing to address them. The leadership willing to spend millions to defend this law is incompetent.

    Reply
  22. Joshua says:

    My only question is about changing the sex on the birth certificate. So you’re saying that they’ll have to keep a copy of their birth certificate with them now? I only ask because you may not know that the woman who is pretty is really a male. Are you saying that you won’t attempt to ensure everyone that enters the women’s bathroom really is that biologically? If you do attempt to ensure that only females enter, how will you do this; how will you be ensuring this? This is my only question about HB2.

    Reply
  23. Joshua says:

    I have never seen in the last twenty years any attempt to ensure that all persons entering a women’s bathroom is biologically female. It most likely would’ve cut down on the number of pervert abs pedophile incidents. Why all of a sudden? And will it be actual compliance enforcement or just those that don’t look female? And where’s the boundary of public and private? The Klein’s bakery was a private business and yet they aren’t allowed to make their own decisions. I agree with the sentiment of HB2 however no one can explain to me how NC will ensure that all persons entering public female restrooms are in fact biologically female. If you don’t plan on enforcing complete compliance are you not just picking a fight with this then toothless law?

    Reply
  24. Joshua says:

    If a transgender is caught, will there now be a fine and court date where they can contest it? Will they now go to court with their birth certificate to show it was changed at the time of bathroom use, at which point the judge will say yes you’re right our bad you’re free to go? All they wanted was to pee but now they have to go through all of this beuracracy? You are creating a larger police state than the left was attempting and what happens if they one day deem the behavior of christianity intolerable and attempt to fine christian behavior? You will have built the infrastructure for them to do that.

    Reply
  25. Luke says:

    I just thought I’d point out that we’re now seeing news stories about cisgender women getting harassed in bathrooms, often due to things like having short hair or stereotypically masculine clothes. (Let me be very clear that cisgender women being harassed is in no way worse than anyone else being harassed.)

    Because of course they are. It is shameful that so many politicians are willing to put actual people at risk in order to make a political point and try to win votes from certain communities.

    We’ve seen throughout this thread many reasons why such laws make people using restrooms less safe, but this was not something I had considered. Let’s just add it to the list I suppose.

    Thanks,

    Luke

    Reply
  26. Luke says:

    In one video that’s gaining views on youtube, police officers manhandle a woman out of a bathroom because she does not have and ID.

    America: Here you need an ID to pee!
    (Also, something about freedom.)

    This seems like a great bumper sticker for supporters of this law.

    You can search for “lesbian forced to leave ladies toilet” (warning this video has some course language). In another at Baylor Medical Center barges into a women’s room, because he thought the women who entered looked like male. He then proceeds to blame her for dressing “like a man”.

    Let’s not forget, this was never a problem before. This problem was created by demagogic politicians, with support of people like Dr. Turek, who I would have hoped would know better. (States have had equal access laws for years now, with no publicity and no trouble.)

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      We’ve had non-gender specific toilets in Britain for years. There are never any problems that I’m aware of.

      Is anyone still pretending this is about caring about people’s welfare rather than just trying to stick it to the uppity LGBT crowd?

      Reply
  27. Bill says:

    I attempted to watch the video link, but it won’t show. Did Youtube take it down? Is there some place else I can view it? What was the title?

    Reply
  28. Trueman Martin says:

    The English language needs a new term: homosex. Frank you state that “homosexuality is a behavior…” What if we say that homosexuality is an internal orientation (not a behavior, and not a sin), but that homosex is the behavior, and thus it is subject to examination, debate, and discrimination? “Heterosex” would be the corresponding term. The addition of these can make our thinking, and our communication, much more clear.

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] sure to also read this. We agree with Dan Forest; the truth is just too […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *