SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Harleman1
Scott Harleman
HUM 115-14E: Written Assignment #3
14 APR 2016
Biological Sex and Gender Identity: How Ambiguity Influenced North Carolina House Bill 2
When, in February 2016, the city of Charlotte, North Carolina expanded its public
accommodations ordinance to prohibit discrimination against LGBT people—gays and lesbians,
based on sexual orientation, and transgender people, based on gender identity—it extended
protections beyond the reach of North Carolina law for the fourth time in almost fifty years. The
first was in 1968, when Charlotte first adopted its public accommodations ordinance, prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin. In 1972 and 1985 it
amended the ordinance to prohibit discrimination based on sex (Carcaño 23). Until March 23,
2016, North Carolina’s public accommodation law protected only the disabled (State Public
Accommodation Laws). Thus, although Charlotte had, for decades, enacted and amended an
ordinance more restrictive than state law, the state took no action against the Charlotte ordinance.
That forty-some years of inaction by the North Carolina legislature could be viewed as neglect
on the part of the state. However, I believe it is symptomatic of something far more sinister.
When the city of Charlotte again amended the ordinance—this time to prohibit discrimination
against LGBT people—the state then claimed that the city had exceeded its authority. The North
Carolina General Assembly convened a special session to pass the Public Facilities Privacy &
Security Act, commonly called House Bill 2 (“H.B. 2”), which defines “biological sex” as “the
physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person's birth certificate,” and
requires boards of education and public agencies to restrict the use of any multiple occupancy
bathrooms or changing facilities to be used only by individuals of the same “biological sex”
Harleman2
(North Carolina 2).
If the use of multiple occupancy bathrooms and changing facilities should be based on
“biological sex…as stated on the birth certificate,” then it can be argued that H.B. 2 recognizes
the moral categorical imperative by insisting that everyone follow its ruling. Its enforcement
would also prevent harm, treat all people with dignity, and promote compassion and moral
sensitivity. The procedures prescribed by H.B. 2 would be a good representation of the law of
reciprocity, resulting in the greatest happiness.
However, neither gender identity nor sexual orientation can be dictated to an
individual…not by a birth certificate, nor by any other entity. Carcaño v. McCrory, a lawsuit
challenging H.B. 2, notes the fact that “the gender marker on a birth certificate is designated at
the time of birth generally based upon the appearance of external genitalia” (8), but “that there is
a medical consensus that gender identity is innate” (8) and that “determinations of sex can
involve multiple factors, such as chromosomes, hormone levels, internal and external
reproductive organs, and gender identity” (8). Thus, it argues, “a person’s gender identity refers
to the person’s internal sense of belonging to a particular gender…and that efforts to change a
person’s gender identity are unethical and harmful to a person’s health and well-being.” (8;
emphasis added). “Gender identity is a core, defining trait and is so fundamental to one’s identity
and conscience that a person cannot be required to abandon it as a condition of equal treatment”
(38).
If the definition of “gender identity” provided by Carcaño v. McCrory is accurate, then
H.B. 2 fails deontology by ignoring the dignity of—in fact, harming—those whose “biological
sex” does not match their gender identity. It violates their rights to liberty, and is anything but
virtuous. It might be viewed as treating others as oneself, and resulting in the greatest
Harleman3
happiness…but only by those who are not fully informed of its consequences.
North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory maintains that H.B. 2 does not “take away
existing protections for individuals in North Carolina” (Myths vs Facts). In fact, H.B. 2 not only
takes away existing protections, it also mandates harmful scenarios:
McCrory argues that the Charlotte ordinance required businesses “to allow a man into a
women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose…[eliminating] the basic expectations
of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their
choice” (Myths vs Facts). Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger and state Senator Buck
Newton agree (Carcaño 26). However, their argument is not sound. The ordinance simply
affirmed the right of every person to use facilities based on gender identity, not choice. In
addition, the argument is morally weak, lacking moral sensitivity. Under the Charlotte ordinance
a transgender woman would use a women’s multiple occupancy restroom, where she would not
look—or feel—out of place…regardless of the gender marker on her birth certificate. Under
H.B. 2, that same woman would be prohibited from using a women’s multiple occupancy
restroom unless the genetic marker on her birth certificate had been updated.
The process of updating the genetic marker can be extremely difficult, and sometimes
impossible. Yet, McCrory claims that “anyone who has undergone a sex change can change their
sex on their birth certificate” (Myths vs Facts). That is but one example of how the framers of
H.B. 2 fell woefully short in their ethical duties of justice and nonmaleficence, displaying a lack
of moral sensitivity, by taking away the rights of the LGBT community. Carcaño v. McCrory
points out the unsoundness of McCrory’s claim:
116. Changing the gender marker on one’s birth certificate is not a viable option
for many transgender people, as every jurisdiction has a different set of often
Harleman4
onerous and unnecessary requirements for updating the gender listed on a birth
certificate.
117. For instance, a person born in North Carolina can only update the gender
marker listed on a North Carolina-issued birth certificate with proof of certain
surgeries that may not be medically necessary, advisable, or affordable for any
given person. Even more troubling, a person born in neighboring Tennessee can
never change the gender listed on a Tennessee-issued birth certificate. (28)
North Carolina General Statute § 130A-11B requires that “sex assignment surgery” be
performed before the state will update the genetic marker on a birth certificate. However, in
some cases that surgery is unnecessary. In other cases it is impossible (Carcaño 40). McCrory’s
claim is unsound and morally weak.
McCrory, Berger, and Newton make the moral argument that the Charlotte ordinance
created a safety issue that is eliminated by the passage of H.B. 2 (Carcaño 26). That argument,
too, is fallacious, making it unsound. Carcaño v. McCrory points out that “prior to the passage of
H.B. 2, it was already illegal for a person to enter a restroom or locker room to assault or injure
another” (29), and that “protecting transgender people from discrimination in public
accommodations, as has been done in numerous states and hundreds of localities, has resulted in
no increase in public safety incidents in any jurisdiction anywhere in the United States” (29).
On the other hand, transgender people who enter a multiple occupancy restroom or
changing facility designated for the opposite sex likely would feel concerned for their own
safety. Since H.B. 2 does not contribute to the safety of non-transgender people, but does create
safety concerns among transgender people, it does not recognize the categorical imperative, nor
is it just in protecting legitimate interests. Its creators lacked moral sensitivity, and violated the
Harleman5
law of reciprocity.
State Senator David Curtis suggested another moral argument by expressing his concern
that “the gays would go into a business, make some outrageous demand that they know the
owner cannot comply with and file a lawsuit against that business owner and put him out of
business” (Carcaño 27). His premise, though, is a version of the slippery slope fallacy. Rather
than being a sound moral argument, it argues against reciprocity, beneficence, justice,
compassion, honesty, moral sensitivity, and the rights of others.
McCrory maintains that, by expanding its ordinance to protect the rights of the LGBT
community, “Charlotte was exceeding its authority and setting rules that had ramifications
beyond the City of Charlotte” (Myths vs Facts). However, for more than four decades Charlotte
had an ordinance that exceeded the authority of North Carolina’s public accommodations law.
Only when Charlotte added protections to lesbian, gay, and transgender people did the state of
North Carolina step in to restrict the city of Charlotte. H.B. 2 not only removes Charlotte’s
protection of LGBT rights by “[banning] transgender people from accessing restrooms and other
facilities consistent with their gender identity” (Carcaño 40), it specifically “blocks local
governments from protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender…people against
discrimination in a wide variety of settings” (Carcaño 1; emphasis added). Thus, the legislators
who enacted H.B. 2—and those who support it—display a lack of compassion and moral
sensitivity. The law restricts the legitimate interests—both welfare and liberty rights—of LGBT
people, sidestepping its ethical duties of nonmaleficence and justice, and blatantly ignoring the
law of reciprocity.
The City Council of Charlotte had it right. When that body expanded its public
accommodations ordinance to prohibit discrimination against LGBT people, it demonstrated its
Harleman6
recognition of universal moral principles. By employing the law of reciprocity it recognized the
categorical imperative, showing beneficence, nonmaleficence, self-improvement and justice. It
displayed compassion, courage, and moral sensitivity by affirming the legitimate interests of the
LGBT community.
Harleman7
Works Cited
Carcaño v. McCrory. 1:16-cv-236. United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina. Filed 2016. American Civil Liberties Union. Web. 9 Apr. 2016. <
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/dkt_1_-
_carcano_v._mccrory_complaint.pdf >
"Myths vs Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and Other Media Outlets Aren't
Saying about Common-sense Privacy Law - Pat McCrory for Governor." Pat McCrory for
Governor. The Pat McCrory Committee, 26 Mar. 2016. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.patmccrory.com/2016/03/26/myths-vs-facts-what-new-york-times-huffington-
post-and-other-media-outlets-arent-saying-about-common-sense-privacy-law/>.
North Carolina (State). Legislature. Assembly. Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. Second
Extra Session 2016. (March 23, 2016). North Carolina General Assembly. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.
< http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf >
“State Public Accommodation Laws.” National Conference of State Legislatures. 13 Mar. 2015.
Web. 9 Apr. 2016. <http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-
accommodation-laws.aspx>

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Traitement des données de télédétection
Traitement des données de télédétectionTraitement des données de télédétection
Traitement des données de télédétection
ddansine
 
Comericio electrónico paola arias presentación 2
Comericio electrónico paola arias presentación 2Comericio electrónico paola arias presentación 2
Comericio electrónico paola arias presentación 2
Briannapaola
 
Tourismus studieren in Salzburg: Innovation & Management im Tourismus der FH...
 Tourismus studieren in Salzburg: Innovation & Management im Tourismus der FH... Tourismus studieren in Salzburg: Innovation & Management im Tourismus der FH...
Tourismus studieren in Salzburg: Innovation & Management im Tourismus der FH...
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Las tics, el internet, y el estado del arte
Las tics, el internet, y el estado del arte Las tics, el internet, y el estado del arte
Las tics, el internet, y el estado del arte
Jorge Lopez
 
Review_ Go-In Canteen — This Is Radelaide
Review_ Go-In Canteen — This Is RadelaideReview_ Go-In Canteen — This Is Radelaide
Review_ Go-In Canteen — This Is Radelaide
Linh Nguyen
 
Bachelor Studium Gesundheits- & Krankenpflege FH Salzburg
Bachelor Studium Gesundheits- & Krankenpflege FH SalzburgBachelor Studium Gesundheits- & Krankenpflege FH Salzburg
Bachelor Studium Gesundheits- & Krankenpflege FH Salzburg
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Multimediatechnologie - Medieninformatik studieren
Multimediatechnologie - Medieninformatik studierenMultimediatechnologie - Medieninformatik studieren
Multimediatechnologie - Medieninformatik studieren
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Master-Studiengang: Innovationsentwicklung im Social-Profit-Sektor
Master-Studiengang: Innovationsentwicklung im Social-Profit-Sektor  Master-Studiengang: Innovationsentwicklung im Social-Profit-Sektor
Master-Studiengang: Innovationsentwicklung im Social-Profit-Sektor
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
BWL Master Studium an der Fachhochschule Salzburg
BWL Master Studium an der Fachhochschule Salzburg  BWL Master Studium an der Fachhochschule Salzburg
BWL Master Studium an der Fachhochschule Salzburg
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Studieren an der FH Salzburg: MultiMediaArt
Studieren an der FH Salzburg: MultiMediaArtStudieren an der FH Salzburg: MultiMediaArt
Studieren an der FH Salzburg: MultiMediaArt
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Master Studium an der FH Salzburg - Holztechnologie und Holzwirtschaft
Master Studium an der FH Salzburg - Holztechnologie und HolzwirtschaftMaster Studium an der FH Salzburg - Holztechnologie und Holzwirtschaft
Master Studium an der FH Salzburg - Holztechnologie und Holzwirtschaft
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Curriculum Vitae of Enitan
Curriculum Vitae of EnitanCurriculum Vitae of Enitan
Curriculum Vitae of Enitan
Enitan Seyifunmi
 
Bachelor-& Masterstudiengänge der Fachhochschule Salzburg
Bachelor-& Masterstudiengänge der Fachhochschule SalzburgBachelor-& Masterstudiengänge der Fachhochschule Salzburg
Bachelor-& Masterstudiengänge der Fachhochschule Salzburg
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Soziale Arbeit studieren - Bachelorstudium Salzburg
Soziale Arbeit studieren - Bachelorstudium SalzburgSoziale Arbeit studieren - Bachelorstudium Salzburg
Soziale Arbeit studieren - Bachelorstudium Salzburg
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Radiotechnologie studieren in Salzburg - Bachelor
Radiotechnologie studieren in Salzburg - BachelorRadiotechnologie studieren in Salzburg - Bachelor
Radiotechnologie studieren in Salzburg - Bachelor
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Physiotherapie Bachelor Studium an der FH Salzburg
Physiotherapie Bachelor Studium an der FH SalzburgPhysiotherapie Bachelor Studium an der FH Salzburg
Physiotherapie Bachelor Studium an der FH Salzburg
Fachhochschule Salzburg
 

Viewers also liked (16)

Traitement des données de télédétection
Traitement des données de télédétectionTraitement des données de télédétection
Traitement des données de télédétection
 
Comericio electrónico paola arias presentación 2
Comericio electrónico paola arias presentación 2Comericio electrónico paola arias presentación 2
Comericio electrónico paola arias presentación 2
 
Tourismus studieren in Salzburg: Innovation & Management im Tourismus der FH...
 Tourismus studieren in Salzburg: Innovation & Management im Tourismus der FH... Tourismus studieren in Salzburg: Innovation & Management im Tourismus der FH...
Tourismus studieren in Salzburg: Innovation & Management im Tourismus der FH...
 
Las tics, el internet, y el estado del arte
Las tics, el internet, y el estado del arte Las tics, el internet, y el estado del arte
Las tics, el internet, y el estado del arte
 
Review_ Go-In Canteen — This Is Radelaide
Review_ Go-In Canteen — This Is RadelaideReview_ Go-In Canteen — This Is Radelaide
Review_ Go-In Canteen — This Is Radelaide
 
Bachelor Studium Gesundheits- & Krankenpflege FH Salzburg
Bachelor Studium Gesundheits- & Krankenpflege FH SalzburgBachelor Studium Gesundheits- & Krankenpflege FH Salzburg
Bachelor Studium Gesundheits- & Krankenpflege FH Salzburg
 
Multimediatechnologie - Medieninformatik studieren
Multimediatechnologie - Medieninformatik studierenMultimediatechnologie - Medieninformatik studieren
Multimediatechnologie - Medieninformatik studieren
 
Master-Studiengang: Innovationsentwicklung im Social-Profit-Sektor
Master-Studiengang: Innovationsentwicklung im Social-Profit-Sektor  Master-Studiengang: Innovationsentwicklung im Social-Profit-Sektor
Master-Studiengang: Innovationsentwicklung im Social-Profit-Sektor
 
BWL Master Studium an der Fachhochschule Salzburg
BWL Master Studium an der Fachhochschule Salzburg  BWL Master Studium an der Fachhochschule Salzburg
BWL Master Studium an der Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Studieren an der FH Salzburg: MultiMediaArt
Studieren an der FH Salzburg: MultiMediaArtStudieren an der FH Salzburg: MultiMediaArt
Studieren an der FH Salzburg: MultiMediaArt
 
Master Studium an der FH Salzburg - Holztechnologie und Holzwirtschaft
Master Studium an der FH Salzburg - Holztechnologie und HolzwirtschaftMaster Studium an der FH Salzburg - Holztechnologie und Holzwirtschaft
Master Studium an der FH Salzburg - Holztechnologie und Holzwirtschaft
 
Curriculum Vitae of Enitan
Curriculum Vitae of EnitanCurriculum Vitae of Enitan
Curriculum Vitae of Enitan
 
Bachelor-& Masterstudiengänge der Fachhochschule Salzburg
Bachelor-& Masterstudiengänge der Fachhochschule SalzburgBachelor-& Masterstudiengänge der Fachhochschule Salzburg
Bachelor-& Masterstudiengänge der Fachhochschule Salzburg
 
Soziale Arbeit studieren - Bachelorstudium Salzburg
Soziale Arbeit studieren - Bachelorstudium SalzburgSoziale Arbeit studieren - Bachelorstudium Salzburg
Soziale Arbeit studieren - Bachelorstudium Salzburg
 
Radiotechnologie studieren in Salzburg - Bachelor
Radiotechnologie studieren in Salzburg - BachelorRadiotechnologie studieren in Salzburg - Bachelor
Radiotechnologie studieren in Salzburg - Bachelor
 
Physiotherapie Bachelor Studium an der FH Salzburg
Physiotherapie Bachelor Studium an der FH SalzburgPhysiotherapie Bachelor Studium an der FH Salzburg
Physiotherapie Bachelor Studium an der FH Salzburg
 

Similar to HUM 115-14E Written Assignment 3

Polygamy and the Law
Polygamy and the LawPolygamy and the Law
Polygamy and the Law
Lauren Steinman
 
The Right to Privacy
The Right to PrivacyThe Right to Privacy
The Right to Privacy
sherice henderson
 
Canadian human rights and freedoms
Canadian human rights and freedomsCanadian human rights and freedoms
Canadian human rights and freedoms
mariachan00000
 
Autumn 2014, Legal Research and Writing - Memorandum of law on obscenity
Autumn 2014, Legal Research and Writing - Memorandum of law on obscenityAutumn 2014, Legal Research and Writing - Memorandum of law on obscenity
Autumn 2014, Legal Research and Writing - Memorandum of law on obscenity
Stephen Cheng
 
Accommodation or Discrimination
Accommodation or DiscriminationAccommodation or Discrimination
Accommodation or Discrimination
Lauren Steinman
 
A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...
A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...
A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...
Kwabena Amponsah Asare
 
Community-Voices-Barriers-to-Voting-for-Californias-Formerly-Incarcerated-spr...
Community-Voices-Barriers-to-Voting-for-Californias-Formerly-Incarcerated-spr...Community-Voices-Barriers-to-Voting-for-Californias-Formerly-Incarcerated-spr...
Community-Voices-Barriers-to-Voting-for-Californias-Formerly-Incarcerated-spr...
Zainab Badi
 
American academy of pediatrics issues statement on controversial HB2 by Floyd...
American academy of pediatrics issues statement on controversial HB2 by Floyd...American academy of pediatrics issues statement on controversial HB2 by Floyd...
American academy of pediatrics issues statement on controversial HB2 by Floyd...
Floyd Arthur
 
CPAA presentation10 23 2010
CPAA presentation10 23 2010CPAA presentation10 23 2010
CPAA presentation10 23 2010
polychickbc
 
Defense of marriage act
Defense of marriage actDefense of marriage act
Defense of marriage act
ccarriger
 
Snyder v phelps honors
Snyder v phelps honorsSnyder v phelps honors
Snyder v phelps honors
Fredrick Smith
 
Jcla.74.4.339
Jcla.74.4.339Jcla.74.4.339
Jcla.74.4.339
Chris Ashford
 
The Good Samaritan Immigration Essay.docx
The Good Samaritan Immigration Essay.docxThe Good Samaritan Immigration Essay.docx
The Good Samaritan Immigration Essay.docx
write4
 
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
mpalaro
 
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination covercivil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
Phyllis W. Cheng
 
ACLU of Delaware Summer 2017 Newsletter
ACLU of Delaware Summer 2017 NewsletterACLU of Delaware Summer 2017 Newsletter
ACLU of Delaware Summer 2017 Newsletter
Mindy Bogue
 
Rejection of LGBT Policy
Rejection of LGBT PolicyRejection of LGBT Policy
Rejection of LGBT Policy
CSR
 
Hb 956
Hb 956Hb 956

Similar to HUM 115-14E Written Assignment 3 (18)

Polygamy and the Law
Polygamy and the LawPolygamy and the Law
Polygamy and the Law
 
The Right to Privacy
The Right to PrivacyThe Right to Privacy
The Right to Privacy
 
Canadian human rights and freedoms
Canadian human rights and freedomsCanadian human rights and freedoms
Canadian human rights and freedoms
 
Autumn 2014, Legal Research and Writing - Memorandum of law on obscenity
Autumn 2014, Legal Research and Writing - Memorandum of law on obscenityAutumn 2014, Legal Research and Writing - Memorandum of law on obscenity
Autumn 2014, Legal Research and Writing - Memorandum of law on obscenity
 
Accommodation or Discrimination
Accommodation or DiscriminationAccommodation or Discrimination
Accommodation or Discrimination
 
A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...
A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...
A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...
 
Community-Voices-Barriers-to-Voting-for-Californias-Formerly-Incarcerated-spr...
Community-Voices-Barriers-to-Voting-for-Californias-Formerly-Incarcerated-spr...Community-Voices-Barriers-to-Voting-for-Californias-Formerly-Incarcerated-spr...
Community-Voices-Barriers-to-Voting-for-Californias-Formerly-Incarcerated-spr...
 
American academy of pediatrics issues statement on controversial HB2 by Floyd...
American academy of pediatrics issues statement on controversial HB2 by Floyd...American academy of pediatrics issues statement on controversial HB2 by Floyd...
American academy of pediatrics issues statement on controversial HB2 by Floyd...
 
CPAA presentation10 23 2010
CPAA presentation10 23 2010CPAA presentation10 23 2010
CPAA presentation10 23 2010
 
Defense of marriage act
Defense of marriage actDefense of marriage act
Defense of marriage act
 
Snyder v phelps honors
Snyder v phelps honorsSnyder v phelps honors
Snyder v phelps honors
 
Jcla.74.4.339
Jcla.74.4.339Jcla.74.4.339
Jcla.74.4.339
 
The Good Samaritan Immigration Essay.docx
The Good Samaritan Immigration Essay.docxThe Good Samaritan Immigration Essay.docx
The Good Samaritan Immigration Essay.docx
 
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
 
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination covercivil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
 
ACLU of Delaware Summer 2017 Newsletter
ACLU of Delaware Summer 2017 NewsletterACLU of Delaware Summer 2017 Newsletter
ACLU of Delaware Summer 2017 Newsletter
 
Rejection of LGBT Policy
Rejection of LGBT PolicyRejection of LGBT Policy
Rejection of LGBT Policy
 
Hb 956
Hb 956Hb 956
Hb 956
 

HUM 115-14E Written Assignment 3

  • 1. Harleman1 Scott Harleman HUM 115-14E: Written Assignment #3 14 APR 2016 Biological Sex and Gender Identity: How Ambiguity Influenced North Carolina House Bill 2 When, in February 2016, the city of Charlotte, North Carolina expanded its public accommodations ordinance to prohibit discrimination against LGBT people—gays and lesbians, based on sexual orientation, and transgender people, based on gender identity—it extended protections beyond the reach of North Carolina law for the fourth time in almost fifty years. The first was in 1968, when Charlotte first adopted its public accommodations ordinance, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin. In 1972 and 1985 it amended the ordinance to prohibit discrimination based on sex (Carcaño 23). Until March 23, 2016, North Carolina’s public accommodation law protected only the disabled (State Public Accommodation Laws). Thus, although Charlotte had, for decades, enacted and amended an ordinance more restrictive than state law, the state took no action against the Charlotte ordinance. That forty-some years of inaction by the North Carolina legislature could be viewed as neglect on the part of the state. However, I believe it is symptomatic of something far more sinister. When the city of Charlotte again amended the ordinance—this time to prohibit discrimination against LGBT people—the state then claimed that the city had exceeded its authority. The North Carolina General Assembly convened a special session to pass the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, commonly called House Bill 2 (“H.B. 2”), which defines “biological sex” as “the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person's birth certificate,” and requires boards of education and public agencies to restrict the use of any multiple occupancy bathrooms or changing facilities to be used only by individuals of the same “biological sex”
  • 2. Harleman2 (North Carolina 2). If the use of multiple occupancy bathrooms and changing facilities should be based on “biological sex…as stated on the birth certificate,” then it can be argued that H.B. 2 recognizes the moral categorical imperative by insisting that everyone follow its ruling. Its enforcement would also prevent harm, treat all people with dignity, and promote compassion and moral sensitivity. The procedures prescribed by H.B. 2 would be a good representation of the law of reciprocity, resulting in the greatest happiness. However, neither gender identity nor sexual orientation can be dictated to an individual…not by a birth certificate, nor by any other entity. Carcaño v. McCrory, a lawsuit challenging H.B. 2, notes the fact that “the gender marker on a birth certificate is designated at the time of birth generally based upon the appearance of external genitalia” (8), but “that there is a medical consensus that gender identity is innate” (8) and that “determinations of sex can involve multiple factors, such as chromosomes, hormone levels, internal and external reproductive organs, and gender identity” (8). Thus, it argues, “a person’s gender identity refers to the person’s internal sense of belonging to a particular gender…and that efforts to change a person’s gender identity are unethical and harmful to a person’s health and well-being.” (8; emphasis added). “Gender identity is a core, defining trait and is so fundamental to one’s identity and conscience that a person cannot be required to abandon it as a condition of equal treatment” (38). If the definition of “gender identity” provided by Carcaño v. McCrory is accurate, then H.B. 2 fails deontology by ignoring the dignity of—in fact, harming—those whose “biological sex” does not match their gender identity. It violates their rights to liberty, and is anything but virtuous. It might be viewed as treating others as oneself, and resulting in the greatest
  • 3. Harleman3 happiness…but only by those who are not fully informed of its consequences. North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory maintains that H.B. 2 does not “take away existing protections for individuals in North Carolina” (Myths vs Facts). In fact, H.B. 2 not only takes away existing protections, it also mandates harmful scenarios: McCrory argues that the Charlotte ordinance required businesses “to allow a man into a women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose…[eliminating] the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice” (Myths vs Facts). Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger and state Senator Buck Newton agree (Carcaño 26). However, their argument is not sound. The ordinance simply affirmed the right of every person to use facilities based on gender identity, not choice. In addition, the argument is morally weak, lacking moral sensitivity. Under the Charlotte ordinance a transgender woman would use a women’s multiple occupancy restroom, where she would not look—or feel—out of place…regardless of the gender marker on her birth certificate. Under H.B. 2, that same woman would be prohibited from using a women’s multiple occupancy restroom unless the genetic marker on her birth certificate had been updated. The process of updating the genetic marker can be extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible. Yet, McCrory claims that “anyone who has undergone a sex change can change their sex on their birth certificate” (Myths vs Facts). That is but one example of how the framers of H.B. 2 fell woefully short in their ethical duties of justice and nonmaleficence, displaying a lack of moral sensitivity, by taking away the rights of the LGBT community. Carcaño v. McCrory points out the unsoundness of McCrory’s claim: 116. Changing the gender marker on one’s birth certificate is not a viable option for many transgender people, as every jurisdiction has a different set of often
  • 4. Harleman4 onerous and unnecessary requirements for updating the gender listed on a birth certificate. 117. For instance, a person born in North Carolina can only update the gender marker listed on a North Carolina-issued birth certificate with proof of certain surgeries that may not be medically necessary, advisable, or affordable for any given person. Even more troubling, a person born in neighboring Tennessee can never change the gender listed on a Tennessee-issued birth certificate. (28) North Carolina General Statute § 130A-11B requires that “sex assignment surgery” be performed before the state will update the genetic marker on a birth certificate. However, in some cases that surgery is unnecessary. In other cases it is impossible (Carcaño 40). McCrory’s claim is unsound and morally weak. McCrory, Berger, and Newton make the moral argument that the Charlotte ordinance created a safety issue that is eliminated by the passage of H.B. 2 (Carcaño 26). That argument, too, is fallacious, making it unsound. Carcaño v. McCrory points out that “prior to the passage of H.B. 2, it was already illegal for a person to enter a restroom or locker room to assault or injure another” (29), and that “protecting transgender people from discrimination in public accommodations, as has been done in numerous states and hundreds of localities, has resulted in no increase in public safety incidents in any jurisdiction anywhere in the United States” (29). On the other hand, transgender people who enter a multiple occupancy restroom or changing facility designated for the opposite sex likely would feel concerned for their own safety. Since H.B. 2 does not contribute to the safety of non-transgender people, but does create safety concerns among transgender people, it does not recognize the categorical imperative, nor is it just in protecting legitimate interests. Its creators lacked moral sensitivity, and violated the
  • 5. Harleman5 law of reciprocity. State Senator David Curtis suggested another moral argument by expressing his concern that “the gays would go into a business, make some outrageous demand that they know the owner cannot comply with and file a lawsuit against that business owner and put him out of business” (Carcaño 27). His premise, though, is a version of the slippery slope fallacy. Rather than being a sound moral argument, it argues against reciprocity, beneficence, justice, compassion, honesty, moral sensitivity, and the rights of others. McCrory maintains that, by expanding its ordinance to protect the rights of the LGBT community, “Charlotte was exceeding its authority and setting rules that had ramifications beyond the City of Charlotte” (Myths vs Facts). However, for more than four decades Charlotte had an ordinance that exceeded the authority of North Carolina’s public accommodations law. Only when Charlotte added protections to lesbian, gay, and transgender people did the state of North Carolina step in to restrict the city of Charlotte. H.B. 2 not only removes Charlotte’s protection of LGBT rights by “[banning] transgender people from accessing restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity” (Carcaño 40), it specifically “blocks local governments from protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender…people against discrimination in a wide variety of settings” (Carcaño 1; emphasis added). Thus, the legislators who enacted H.B. 2—and those who support it—display a lack of compassion and moral sensitivity. The law restricts the legitimate interests—both welfare and liberty rights—of LGBT people, sidestepping its ethical duties of nonmaleficence and justice, and blatantly ignoring the law of reciprocity. The City Council of Charlotte had it right. When that body expanded its public accommodations ordinance to prohibit discrimination against LGBT people, it demonstrated its
  • 6. Harleman6 recognition of universal moral principles. By employing the law of reciprocity it recognized the categorical imperative, showing beneficence, nonmaleficence, self-improvement and justice. It displayed compassion, courage, and moral sensitivity by affirming the legitimate interests of the LGBT community.
  • 7. Harleman7 Works Cited Carcaño v. McCrory. 1:16-cv-236. United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Filed 2016. American Civil Liberties Union. Web. 9 Apr. 2016. < https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/dkt_1_- _carcano_v._mccrory_complaint.pdf > "Myths vs Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and Other Media Outlets Aren't Saying about Common-sense Privacy Law - Pat McCrory for Governor." Pat McCrory for Governor. The Pat McCrory Committee, 26 Mar. 2016. Web. 9 Apr. 2016. <http://www.patmccrory.com/2016/03/26/myths-vs-facts-what-new-york-times-huffington- post-and-other-media-outlets-arent-saying-about-common-sense-privacy-law/>. North Carolina (State). Legislature. Assembly. Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. Second Extra Session 2016. (March 23, 2016). North Carolina General Assembly. Web. 9 Apr. 2016. < http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf > “State Public Accommodation Laws.” National Conference of State Legislatures. 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 9 Apr. 2016. <http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public- accommodation-laws.aspx>