March 30, 2017

"Compromise requires give and take from all sides, and we are pleased this proposal fully protects bathroom safety and privacy."

Said Phil Berger, the leader of the North Carolina senate, and Roy Cooper, the new Governor, in a joint statement about the new bill, repealing House Bill 2.

The new bill would "create a moratorium on local nondiscrimination ordinances through 2020 and leave regulation of 'multi-occupancy facilities,' or bathrooms, to state lawmakers," the NYT reports.

Cooper, a Democrat, beat the incumbent Pat McCrory, a narrow victory that had to do with Bill 2 (and the boycotting of the state that it touched off). Bill 2 had required everyone using a public bathroom in North Carolina to use only the facility that corresponds to the sex designated on their birth certificate.

Cooper also said:
“I support the House Bill 2 repeal compromise that will be introduced tomorrow. It’s not a perfect deal, but it repeals House Bill 2 and begins to repair our reputation.”

34 comments:

Laslo Spatula said...

"Compromise requires give and take from all sides..."

But somehow, for those being asked to compromise, it seems to usually end up being 'take' in the 'back-side'...

I think you saw what I did there.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

Is it too late to go back to a Bathroom Version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"...?

I am Laslo.

Birkel said...

That boycott cost the state 1/10,000 of every tourism dollar, reportedly.

Unknown said...

I guess if the reputation they wanted to repair is that of having conservative values without having the backbone to stand up for them, then they succeeded.

CJinPA said...

I haven't commented much recently because I find myself with nothing useful to say. All the news seems to be reruns.

Lyssa said...

I'm having a hard time understanding what this bill would actually do. I'm reading "create a moratorium on local nondiscrimination ordinances through 2020 and leave regulation of 'multi-occupancy facilities,' or bathrooms, to state lawmakers," as meaning that the bill would prohibit municipalities from setting their own rules, but not make any currently specified rules at the state level - is that correct?

(I think that this is the best choice in the general public context - I've never seen any reason to believe that the general system of "don't ask, don't tell" was a problem for anyone. There's an argument to have more carefully laid out rules for places like schools, particularly when we're talking about facilities without individual stalls.)

Fernandinande said...

"fully protects bathroom safety and privacy."

Everything was already OK; the social fad of virtue signaling and advertising one's "team" membership didn't change that.

dreams said...

I guess I'll be reading more stories like this.

"I was off to the side waiting with the two boys, when I noticed a man walk into the restroom. My first thought was “Oh shit, he’s walked in the wrong restroom by mistake. lol” He took a few more steps, at which point he would’ve definitely noticed all the women lined up and still kept walking. My next thought was, “Maybe he’s looking for his wife…or child and they’ve been in here a while.” But he didn’t call out any names or look around. He just stood off to the side and leaned up against the wall. At this point I’m like, “WTF? Ok there is definitely a very large, burly man in a Lakers jersey who just walked in here. Am I the only one seeing this?" I surveyed the room and saw roughly 12 women, children in tow, staring at him with the exact same look on their faces. Everyone was visibly uncomfortable. We were all trading looks and motioning our eyes over to him…like "What is he doing in here?” Yet every single one of us was silent. And this is the reason I wrote this blog."

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2017/03/28/large-burly-man-lurking-in-disney-ladies-room-should-make-everyone-stop-and-think/

Laslo Spatula said...

Alan Allen, College Student with a SJW Girlfriend...

So Jezzy is VERY upset: she and her friends organized a "Restroom Freedom Day," where everyone on campus was encouraged to use whatever facility they wanted to express themselves. I told her this could be a bad idea, but it turns out I was guilty of Heteronormative Thinking, so I shut up before I ruined the possibility of getting a blow-job this weekend...

So "Restroom Freedom Day" turned out to be uneventful. For about two hours. Then, groups of Heteronormative Men entered several of the 'Women's' restrooms in dresses and proceeded to stay there for the day. For some reason they were all wearing Plaid, which -- although I don't know what that meant exactly -- was a nice touch...

Of course, this did not go over well with the Restroom Freedom Day organizers: this was NOT what they meant by expressing one's self. I wanted to say something about Pandora's Box, but: one, that would probably be Patriarchal, and, two: blow-job...

The Organizers then called the Campus Police to remove the Heteronormative Men from the Women's Restrooms, but there was a problem: the Campus Authorities, in support of "Restroom Freedom Day," had instructed the Campus Police to NOT respond to requests to remove people from the restrooms on the account of their sex. I was very careful to keep my laughter on the inside while listening to this...

Now women were complaining that they had to use the Men's Restrooms to feel Safe. Which still made them feel Unsafe. The problem would have been easily solved for these women if they had just thought about the situation a little: simply use the restrooms in the Sciences buildings: the students there ain't got time for that "Restroom Freedom Day" shit. And -- being that there aren't a lot of female students in those buildings, the Women's Restrooms are pretty empty most of the time...

I told Jezzy I sympathized with her, but that I was going to go to the Library to study. Before leaving for the Library, though, I changed into a Plaid shirt. Jezzy didn't like that, but I knew I wasn't going to be getting a blow-job this weekend, anyway...

I am Laslo.

EDH said...

The new bill would "create a moratorium on local nondiscrimination ordinances through 2020 and leave regulation of 'multi-occupancy facilities,' or bathrooms, to state lawmakers," the NYT reports.

Why not let the actual owners of the bathrooms decide what makes sense for their visitors in the trade-off between unfettered access and visitor safety/privacy concerns (abuse)?

They have more opportunity and incentive to be judicious in how each situation is handled at the time on their own property.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Re: the guy in the ladies bathroom in Disneyland

This is when you film the guy. Get a good close up of his face. Show the reactions of the discomfited and obviously racist homophobic women and girls. The bitches.

Then put it on youtube and Reddit and show the "tranny in process" so that everyone who knows him will see that he is obviously identifying as a woman and although he probably still has his dick (we don't know until he actually uses the restroom) he is becoming a woman. Hopefully all his friends will see this and support his transformation into a woman.!

Right? There is no other reason that he would be hanging out in the women's restroom. Right?

How brave of him! How special! We want the whole world to know about this guy.

Go viral----------->

Oso Negro said...

When the LGBTQWXYZ lobby wants unlimited access to your children's orifices, compromise! Allow access only during normal school hours. Otherwise, you are pretty much a homophobe, a racist, and a hater.

Rick said...

begins to repair our reputation.”

This is what drives all left wing policy - the elites' competition for standing among other left wing elites. Impact on the people is unimportant as we see from Obamacare, Head Start, and the thousand other programs which return effectively no benefit to anyone except those who run the programs.

Static Ping said...

I suppose I should note that they attempted to do something similar in the lame duck period for the Republican governor, but the Democrats blocked it.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

I don't think McCrory lost because of HB2. He was widely seen as being owned by Duke Power Company and as being cruel to the poor, which most North Carolinians disliked him for. On the other hand, polls had been predicting that Hillary would do better in North Carolina than in Florida, but she did two points worse, and that may have been because tyrannical NC double gay, er A, behavior made North Carolinians (gradually) consider that she might be similarly tyrannical. Not that people all over the country weren't probably spooked by the elitist NCAA behavior less than two months before the general election, possibly playing a role in her loss in other states, but it got more attention in North Carolina.

rhhardin said...

If they'd just designate them penis rooms and vagina rooms, with no identification as to man- or woman-identifying, it would work out owing to there being no issue.

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm having a hard time understanding what this bill would actually do. I'm reading "create a moratorium on local nondiscrimination ordinances through 2020 and leave regulation of 'multi-occupancy facilities,' or bathrooms, to state lawmakers," as meaning that the bill would prohibit municipalities from setting their own rules, but not make any currently specified rules at the state level - is that correct?"

Yes, I think it's similar to what Colorado did that was found unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans -- make a law against local lawmaking that was specifically focused on disadvantaging the political progress of a particular group.

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't think McCrory lost because of HB2."

Do you think my phrase "had to do" is too definite?

I intended to be vague.

It was a narrow victory, so any given factor could be said to be causal...

LYNNDH said...

So when the ladies use the men's restroom, do they block the door so a man cannot enter? If not, then when men come into THEIR restroom and use the urinals do the women watch or not?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Think back 10 years. Was this a pressing issue for anybody, on the Right or the Left? Was it on the radar at all? Five minutes after the gay marriage SCOTUS ruling came out, the Left immediately switched their attention to trannies. They focused on a nonissue, made it into one and now the potty needs of a miniscule part of the population are dividing us and absorbing the attention of judges and politicians. Now it's like the Civil Rights Issue of Our Era.

What a stupid era.

sean said...

It's amazing to me that, with declining median income across the country (it is lower than it was in 1999), and declining life expectancy among whites (maybe among Americans overall?) without college degrees, the law professors and lawmakers of America spend their time worrying about who uses what bathroom. What a pack of useless minds!

Now I know that, as to the law professors, Prof. Althouse has suggested that what we actually have is a pack of dangerous minds, and that quarantining them where they can rant all manner of absurdities but have no actual power is a net social gain. There's something in that. But how much better it would be to devise a system where those minds were rendered useful.

David Begley said...

Exile:

Good comment. So what's next for the Left? I say polygamy.

Birches said...

I don't think this is a loss for those of us who are not comfortable with a man in the ladies room. This whole brouhaha was started because Charlotte passed a law saying that businesses had to let people choose the bathroom of their choice. The NC legislature said, no way. Now, things go back to the way they were before any of the bills started, which is just as it's always been.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"So what's next for the Left? I say polygamy."

I wouldn't bet against you, David.

And that will be presented as a Civil Rights/Religious Freedom issue. Why can't Mohammad from Syria have his 4 wives recognized by law? Are you a bigot?

Unknown said...

I don't know what's next: polygamy or pedophilia.

The problem with advancing polygamy is that you'd have to overrule Reynolds and Davis v. Beecon and a whole bunch of other cases, meaning that secular laws cannot override religious practices. And the left absolutely loves the idea they get to dictate to Christians what to do.

I mean, you think the left wants to take the position that they can't jail Mormons who are polygamist? They love that power.

So, polygamy is, I think, a harder one, even though it's all about enabling Islam this time around.

So: pedophilia. That's something they are much more comfortable with and there's no religious freedom issues that I know of, save Muslims wanting to rape kids (like Mohammed did with Aisha).

Likely they'll try to do both at once.

--Vance

tcrosse said...

It all depends how you characterize the man in the ladies room. To some, he's a vulnerable, sensitive young thing in drag. To others, he's a burly guy with a three-day beard. A similar distinction applies to Syrian refugees: for some it's a beautiful woman in a head scarf with a cute kid. For others, it's a swarthy guy with a mustache and rape on his mind. So we talk at cross-purposes.

St. George said...

Does this mean Ringo Starr will reschedule that concert here that he cancelled last year?

Static Ping said...

For the record, the usual suspects are not happy with the compromise. Then again they are bigots who fancy themselves "tolerant."

Ann: Yes, I think it's similar to what Colorado did that was found unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans -- make a law against local lawmaking that was specifically focused on disadvantaging the political progress of a particular group.

It's cute that you still think that Supreme Court decisions are based on anything but personal preferences.

The Charlotte ordinance was essentially everyone must let men into the women's room: no exceptions, no waivers, no alternatives. That would be an interesting argument to uphold. I'm sure Sotomayor is up to it.

OGWiseman said...

I have no real opinion on the politics of this, but I've always found the "use the bathroom of your birth-certificate gender" bills hilarious. Clearly written by people who have no actual understanding of what the demographics of the trans community look like. They must think most of them are drag queens and ladyboys. They're not. The vast majority pass publicly and easily as their gender of choice.

So the actual effect of a fully enforced bill of that nature would be people who look like men using the women's restroom--the exact opposite of the lawmakers' intention. Which actually sounds a lot like a government program to me, so carry on.

Static Ping said...

OGWiseman, fair enough, thought NC law allows persons to change their sex on their birth certificate.

The state law was a pre-emption of the Charlotte law which forced private businesses to allow men in the women's room and vice-versa. If the state law was interfering with an arrangement that had been working well, then so was the city law. Arguably, the city law was significantly more intrusive. If everyone had just left well enough alone, there probably would not have been problems. The problem is the SJWs need problems as apparently that is their version of a religious sacrament.

mockturtle said...

"So what's next for the Left? I say polygamy."

You could be right. If a person is bisexual or, more properly, ambisexual, why should he/she not be entitled to be married to one of each gender?/sarc

But I'm more likely to bet that pederasty will be the next cause célèbre.

n.n said...

Transgender/Transvestites.

This actually is a local issue to conform with local standards. However, social liberals targeting prepubescent and adolescent boys and girls for indoctrination and transgender -- including homosexual -- conversion therapy is not. Targeting mothers and fathers in political, economic, and social spheres is intolerable.

David Begley:

Technically, we already have polygamy: friendship with "benefits", albeit without commitment. Still, there are other orientations and associations that have yet to be normalized, including: trans-social (e.g. Polanski), trans-species (No Judgment).

Fritz said...

Yes, I think it's similar to what Colorado did that was found unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans -- make a law against local lawmaking that was specifically focused on disadvantaging the political progress of a particular group.

Isn't that the essence of politics?

tim said...


It was a narrow victory, so any given factor could be said to be causal...


He lost almost solely due to killing the film incentive program.

If you look at totals for other proponents of hb2, they still won big in SE NC, but Pat got smoked there, SE NC home of screen gems studio and "Wilmywood."

Hb2 was sound and fury...film work was people voting their pocketbooks.