1
Hughes
Kathleen Hughes
Dr. Williams
Phil 216
17 May 2017
Moral Implications of HB2
On March 23, 2016 the General Assembly of North Carolina passed into law the House Bill 2 (HB2), more commonly known as the Bathroom Bill. This bill was in response to the previous Charlotte Ordinance that added transgender people to the list of protected classes covered by the North Carolina government. The bill, among other things, made it illegal for transgender people to use the bathroom of their reassigned sex in North Carolina government-run facilities. With much controversy surrounding the entirety of the bill and a recent repeal, I will focus solely on the moral implications of passing the portion of the bill that takes away transpersons right to use the bathroom of their preferred identity. I will argue that it is morally wrong for states to require transpersons to use the bathroom that corresponds to their biological identity because it harms transpersons and is an inherently unjust law.
This bill is discriminatory against transpersons because it harms their emotional and physical well-being by making them more susceptible to bullying and giving a false perception that they are criminals, or in the wrong. By forcing this law, states are actually creating an environment conducive to harming the mental and physical safety of transpersons. Specifically, laws of this nature cause harm by making transpersons more vulnerable to verbal and physical assault.For example, transgender students are especially harmed by this law. Mahita Gajanan, in a TIME magazine article, states that transgender advocates say the “prospect of singling out transgender students is harmful to children” because “they already face misunderstanding and bullying” (Gajanan). This reinforces the idea that a law similar to HB2 will cause harm by making transgender students an easy target for bullying in schools. She mentions an example of a student, Holly Montemayor, who was particularly impacted by her school’s unaccepting policy. She was barred from using the women’s restroom after coming out as transgender, which led “her peers to ask invasive questions and stare at her when she went to the bathroom” (Gajanan). Montemayor was allowed to use the women’s bathroom once she moved to high school, but “she started receiving death threats from other students” and “The emotional toll caused her grades to suffer” and eventually drop out (Gajanan). While this is only one example, Montemayor’s story is not uncommon. It shows the broad scope of emotional harm that transpersons are exposed to when denied their right to use the bathroom they prefer. This harm even shifts violent as Montemayor’s physical safety came into question. No doubt, HB2 and, laws similar to it, perpetuate and normalize the already present bullying that transgender students face.
Additionally, this law causes harm in another way by creating a false association of transgender people with criminals. By citing concern for women’s safety from predatory males as the reason for passing HB2 into law, the state is suggesting to its citizens that they have something to fear in regards to transgender people’s intentions. A similar phenomenon was seen recently in France’s 2010 burqa ban. Ben McPartland, in an article titled “Burqa ban five years on- ‘We created a monster,’” states that supporters of the law “argued that its main aim as part of a security measure to bar anyone from being able to hide their identity in public” (McPartland). This is similar to supporters of the HB2, whoreference women’s safety as their main purpose for denying transpersons the right to choose the bathroom they are comfortable with. Technically neither party identified women who wear burqas or transpersons as dangerous, however, that perception is given to the society when the sole reason for passing the law is to ensure safety. McPartland quotes sociologist, Angnes de Feo who states that the “2010 ban has only helped to normalize and encourage Islamophobia in France” (McPartland). This is evidence that the original law failed in its effort to create a safer environment and actually instigated more fear surrounding an innocent group of people. This is an instance of denying a certain group of people a right in order to protect the larger population, but, instead, the minority group ends up being persecuted. In the same way that women who wear burqas in France became ostracized and perceived as dangerous, laws like HB2 have the potential to create a false perception of transpersons as criminals.
Another reason states should not require transpersons to use the bathroom that matches their biological gender is because that law is inherently unjust. According to Martin Luther King Jr., an unjust law is “a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself” (King 4). He goes even further with the definition, explaining that “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (King 4). Any law similar to the HB2 falls under the category of Dr. King’s definition of unjust. In this case, the majority are cisgender persons and the minority are transgender persons. Cisgender persons are forcing transgender persons to adhere to a law that infringes on the minority’s lifestyle in a way that it does not infringe on the majority’s lifestyle. For example, while each group is technically adhering to the same law under HB2, transpersons are forced to alter their lifestyle by being subjected to using the bathroom of the gender they fought to transition out of. In contrast, cisgender persons are not subjected to the same trauma and lifestyle change, as they are only following a law that reinforces their normal routine. In this sense, transpersons, or the minority, are forced to follow a law that cisgender persons, or the majority, are not affected by in the same way. This makes it unjust, and therefore unlawful to pass into being. The HB2 also fits into Dr. King’s extended definition of “degrading human personality.” By not recognizing transpersons’ right to use the bathroom that corresponds to their preferred identity, the government is essentially not recognizing transgender people as humans with valid rights. This is degrading and conveys the idea that the government does not support the transgender community, which, in turn, perpetuates and normalizes discrimination against transgender people.
A common objection to this article is rooted in people’s fear that allowing transpersons to enter the bathroom of their reassigned gender will increase sexual violence against women.Supporters of this objection cite several instances in which cisgender males have entered female restrooms dressed as women with the intent of sexually assaulting women or inserting cameras with the intent to exploit women in a vulnerable state. They believe that passing a law that allows a transgender woman, who still resembles a man in some respects, will make it easier for cisgender male criminals to dress up as women and enter women’s restrooms with less suspicion under the pretense of being in transition. While it is important to consider how laws will impact the safety of everyone in the community, my firstresponse to this objection concerns the lack of concrete evidence supporting the statement that thiscriminal behavior will increase after passing a law that protects transpersons right to use the bathroom they are comfortable with. An online article by TIME magazine states that New York City and the state of California have both had non-discriminatory laws in place,specifically protecting transgender people’s right to use the bathroom of their choice for years and that “there’s no record of that behavior increasing when there’s an LGBT non-discrimination law on the books” (Steinmetz). Considering that other states have held similar laws to the one Charlotte passed, without any reports of increased sexual assault against women, is sufficient evidence that the objection above isnot credible. In this case, defendants of this objection are guilty of “stacking the deck” and only citing a few off hand instance in which sexual assault related crimes have happened as a result of men cross dressing. They ignore the vast evidence found in other states which points towards the conclusion that sexual assault does not increase as a result of a nondiscrimination law being passed.
Another rebuttalto this objection concerns its contradictory nature in terms of logical consistency. Supporters of the HB2 law are fearful that cisgender male criminals will be more willing to dress up and enter the women’s restroom in order to assault. They advocate that all transpersons should use the bathroom of their biological gender. This, however, could have a similar effect as the one they are trying to avoid. By forcing transgender men, who look fully male but still have female genitalia intact, to use the women’s restroom, it could be argued that cisgender male criminals will enter the women’s bathroom without having to cross dress under the pretense that they are transgender males. In this case, passing HB2 makes it even easier for these cisgender male criminals to have access to women’s restrooms across the nation. While this particular phenomenon is just as unfounded and unlikely to happen as the objection in question, it works to show how contradictory this logic actually is. It is more successful at fear mongering a crowd of transphobic people than holding up under actual investigation.
Therefore, it is clear that states are morally obligated to allow transpersons to use the bathroom of their choice. The law barring this from happening is unjust and discriminates against transgender people by making them more vulnerable to emotional and physical harm. The common objection that allowing transpersons to use the bathroom of their choice will result in an increase of sexual assault lacks proper evidence and has inconsistent logic. This issue, however, is complex and not easily resolvable because of the many deep-rooted fears for women’s safety and economic concerns about creating single-stall restrooms for transpersons.
Works Cited
Gajanan, Mahita. “What the Trump Administration’s Bathroom Memo Means for Transgender Kids.” TIME,24 Feb. 2017, Accessed 15 May 2017.
King Jr., Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail: April 16, 1963.” The King Center, Course Reserves, Accessed 29 March 2017.
Steinmetz, Katy. “Why LGBT Advocates Say Bathroom ‘Predators’ Argument Is a Red Herring.” TIME, 2 May 2016, Accessed 14 May 2017.