North Carolina’s recent foot in the stream of the transgender movement may have just singlehandedly made the country look over its shoulder to revisit its segregatory roots.
On May 9, a battle between the state and the federal government ensued. It started when North Carolina governor Pat McCrory released a statement declaring that the North Carolina HB2 bathroom bill, which called for people to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding with their biological sex, was being hindered by federal policy of inclusivity. In order to circumvent this policy, the state filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department.
However, less than seven hours later, a countersuit was placed by the Justice Department on the basis that the bill was a breach in basic civil rights and human rights . Attorney General Loretta Lynch took to the podium shortly after the governor’s action, and Lynch declared a countersuit on the basis of the North Carolina legislature and the governor having “placed North Carolina in direct opposition of federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.”
And something as rash as this was expected of North Carolina; however, the bill itself is meant to be more symbolic than a basis for real segregatory enforcement. It was simply passed to make a bold statement— to pull back the rest of the progressing nation to its discriminatory and inherently bigoted roots in the name of “tradition,” and provide an embarrassing past to bore juniors in future APUSH lectures.
But while the ethical issue is explicit in its discrimination, the legal bounds for the suit are hazy, and this was made even clearer when MVHS Mock Trial members shared their input on the issue. Junior Shreyas Shastri believes the primary reason that the NC state government had any grounds to file the suit is the lack of written protection of gender identity.
“The transgender law does not fall under the Civil Rights act of ‘64 which is why they have shady legal grounds to make such claims,” Shastri said, “but even still it’s necessary for improvements to be made upon the act in order to include transgender rights.”
Because the Civil Rights movement at the time was primarily focused on racial equality of minorities to the white majority, Shastri speculates that gender identity was not really a major concern for legislature to incorporate in protective laws. However, to senior Jason Lu, former Mock Trial attorney, the situation is slightly more complicated than a civil rights violation.
“I guess you could say that things like this go beyond the scope of law in the sense that a lot of financial problems are brought up,” Loo said. “North Carolina doesn’t want to spend the money in order to build the transgender bathrooms, so they filed a claim upon the basis that the bathrooms that currently exist.”
Lu believes that apart from an explicit desire to segregate and hold to traditional bathroom separation, finance is a reason that the NC state government might be using to validate their lack of adherence to federal policy. And more than anything, the best way to circumvent the implications of the law is to follow it word for word.
“Legally, they have the grounds to back [this lawsuit] up because when the laws were being made… transgender people were not a commonality in the public” Lu said. “ The only logical opinion here is that the law does need to be changed or updated, but as of now North Carolina has valid legal grounds to file this lawsuit.”
To sophomore Atul Merchia, and future president of Mock Trial, the controversy that was perpetuated by the countersuits was unwarranted and essentially useless. He sees the solution to the problem as straightforward: stick to the gender mentalities outside of public facilities so ideologies are not imposed.
“If you are able to pee in a urinal, you may go in the men’s bathroom. Otherwise, go in the women’s bathroom and that’s it,” Merchia said. “It doesn’t matter what gender you are.”
This bill for many was a symbol of repression against the entire LGBTQ movement. A step backwards to impose effect on the several steps forward. But Merchia doesn’t believe that the polarized views against the situation is helping any progress. In order for acceptance to become a uniform reality, he believes stereotypes must be broken thoroughly.
“By putting genders into a box, like this scenario, and saying that if you don’t fit into that box, you have to identify yourself as another gender you are only perpetuating sexual stereotypes,” Merchia said. “Just be comfortable with who you are.”
