 |
| the bathroom question? |
Hamlet’s
“To be or not to be” better explains the predicament of the State of North
Carolina’s administration with respect to the “Bathroom Law”. By way of context
building, the Bathroom Law is enacted in March 23, 2016 as “the Public
Facilities Privacy and Security Act” or as the long title suggests, “An Act to
Provide for Single-sex Multiple Occupancy Bathroom and Changing Facilities in
Schools and Public Agencies and to Create Statewide Consistency in Regulation
of Employment and Public Accommodations”. The long title provides a clue as to
the content of the law: it regulates the use of public bathrooms, to say the
least.
However, the most controversial aspect of the law, which is the gist of
this post, is that it mandates one to use the bathroom section that relates to
the gender on his/her birth certificate. In other words, notwithstanding the
gender one identifies himself/herself with, you are mandated to identify with
the gender on your birth certificate for the purposes of having some “convenience”
in public when an occasion calls for it. As a result of this particular
provision, the uproar against the law has cited it, in the most undignified
manner, as “anti-LGBT”.
Advertisement
The critical thing about the State of North Carolina is that no one is permitted to change the gender on his birth certificate unless such person had undergone s^x reassignment surgery. Therefore, unless and until one has changed the gender on his/her birth certificate, which is only possible after a s^x reassignment surgery, can there be a legal permission to use the bathroom of the gender he/she identifies with where the gender differs from the one originally in his/her birth certificate.
 |
| The Bathroom Law: The Gender Question! |
With
the context in summarised perspective, we will now turn to the criticisms for
and against the law. It is pertinent to point out here that the backlash had
been more intense than any favourable disposition towards the Act. At the height,
the FEDs have threatened to withdraw N.C’s education funding if the State fails
to repeal the law, citing that the Bathroom Law violates Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act “which bars discrimination on the basis of s^x in workplace, and
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which on the other hand bars
discrimination in education on the basis of s^x.[1] In consequence, there have
been a couple of lawsuits between the State of North Carolina and the
Department of Justice. They have each filed a suit against each other, arguing
on the legality or otherwise of the “infamous” Bathroom Law.
Since
the matter is before a court of competent jurisdiction, it will be subjudice to make further comment in
substance on the matter. However, we may need to point out the contradicting
opinions. One twitter user, Bakari, referred to as being “much more bigotry than [bathroom bill]”. He concluded by adding “All that discrimination packed in 5 pgs”.
On the other hand, Megan seems to be in support of the Act, citing that “we can’t let transgender use women’s
bathroom, [as this will] def.[initely] open doors up to predators.”
 |
| For whose safety? |
Each
side has a valid argument from the summarised context above: protecting the “vulnerable”
from possible assault and protecting the rights of the transgender community.
What do you think of the Bathroom Law? Is the problem with the law or the
entire gamut of North Carolina’s law regarding transgender? Or are the
critiques not objective enough to appreciate the potential risk of letting into
a delicate place like bathroom, those who have not really undergone the
necessary surgery to reassign their hormonal makeup to reflect their identified
gender?
[1]
The
Washington Times, Feds Threaten to Pull Education Funding from N.C over Transgender
Bathroom Bill, online: May 4, 2016 <washingtontimes.com>
No comments:
Post a Comment