IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ERRONEOUS BATHROOM LAW, THE GOVERNMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA WILL PROCEED TO CONDUCT GENITAL EXAMINATIONS.

For the sake of this blog post, I have waited a week before writing on North Carolina’s ongoing efforts to combat discrimination, specifically with regard to gender identity and expression. This piece of writing by Robert A. Sedler expresses my stance well. At the beginning, it is important to remind those who are reading this that the legislature of North Carolina is unable to provide evidence of a sufficient number of attacks that occurred in restrooms in order to support this emergency legislation. This legislation, on the other hand, tries to disenfranchise yet another aspect of our culture, not unlike the restriction of voting rights that is directed against economically disadvantaged minority. At this moment, it is the community of transgender people. In our country, we are governed by a constitution and the rule of law. Throughout the course of our nation’s history, we have depended on the Constitution to safeguard the rights of individuals and to prohibit discrimination against individuals and organizations on the basis of who they are. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits the government from engaging in discrimination on the basis of race, discrimination on the basis of gender, discrimination against children born outside of wedlock, and, more recently, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In a series of cases that were decided just a year ago, including the case of DeBoer v. Snyder in the state of Michigan, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution safeguards the fundamental right of individuals of the same sexual orientation to enter into the institution of marriage. These couples and their children suffered significant injury as a result of the prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples, and the court came to the conclusion that the state had no legitimate justification to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. However, as soon as the Supreme Court rules against one kind of prejudice, another form of discrimination appears on the scene. Individuals who declare a right to a gender identity that is different from the gender they were assigned at birth are the target of discrimination in today’s society. It is my contention that the Constitution ought to safeguard the freedom of every individual to come to their own conclusions on their gender identity, and that the government ought not to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their current gender identity. In the same way as discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation has taken on a variety of forms, discrimination on the basis of gender identity has also become more complex. The new legislation in North Carolina that mandates individuals to use the public toilet for the gender that is indicated on their birth certificate, even if they now identify with the opposite gender, is one of the most destructive kinds of discrimination that has been passed in the state. In all likelihood, the legislation cannot be enforced. The state will not station security personnel at public bathrooms in order to examine the genital areas of those who are entering the restroom. But the purpose of the law is to degrade transgender people in the same way that laws in southern states used to degrade African Americans by prohibiting “colored men” from entering restrooms for “white gentlemen” and “colored women” from entering restrooms for “white ladies.” This law is intended to degrade transgender people in the same way. The state’s completely absurd assertion that the rule is required to protect “sexual predators” from entering women’s toilets is just another factor that contributes to the denigration of transgender individuals. In a statement, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter,” and that “As the Constitution endures, individuals in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.” It is without a doubt that this domain of personal liberty must include the freedom of every individual to establish their own gender identity and to be free from any and all kinds of discrimination that may be imposed by the government on the basis of their gender identity. In addition to being a civil rights attorney headquartered in Los Angeles, Sean Erenstoft is the founder of the blog that can be found at www.superiorcourtblog.com. Get in touch with Erenstoft via his website, which may be found at www.erenstoft.com, for further details.