# data[].attributes.body
Many significant corporations, companies, and even celebrities have pleaded their outcry against House Bill 2 in North Carolina.

In this particular image a collage of familiar company logos, such as Starbucks, IBM, Apple, etc., are pasted together, with the statement below stating, “More than 400 business/organizations oppose HB2.” This image is invoking the message that since successful and influential companies oppose HB2, you should too.

This collage of company logos establishes logical appeal due to the fact that it essentially establishes the message that the “majority” opposes HB2; therefore, you should “hop on the bandwagon” and join majority’s opinion on HB2.

This image is significant because it represents the public’s outcry against HB2 in North Carolina, and establishes the fact that social media, companies, pop culture, etc. are usually against the bill.

400 companies oppose HB2. Facing South. Institute for Southern Studies, 2016. Web. 5 May 2016. <http://www.southernstudies.org/2016/04/why–the–hb2–boycott–of–north–carolina–is–working.html>.

# data[].attributes.body
Part of the reason of much of the hatred towards transgenders is because many people do not understand what a transgender person is.

The article establishes what a transgender person is and what kind of changes they undergo. The article states that Transgenders are people who align themselves with the opposite gender of the sex they are born. It goes on to describe that many take to medical operations to better situate themselves to the gender they align with.

The strategies being used is a hypothetical situation to describe who would be a transgender, and it uses logical reasoning by describing real experiences that many genders face.

The text is necessary because it provides background information and establishes the definition of a major term we will be discussing throughout the padlet and presentation.

What Does Transgender Mean?" Belong to Groups. BeLonG To Youth Services, n.d.

Web. 5 May 2016. <http://www.belongto.org/group.aspx?contentid=2918>.

Transgender, or Trans: means someone whose gender differs from the one they were given when they were born.  Transgender people may identify as male or female, or they may feel that neither label fits them.
Transition:  In order to express their chosen gender, transgender people may transition, or change, from the gender they were given at birth.  They may change their names, pronouns or style of dress.  Some transgender people also choose a medical transition, with the help of medical specialists, who will prescribe hormones and/or surgery.

Transsexual:  a person who lives in a different gender to the one they were given when they were born.  For example, someone who was called a ‘boy’ when they were born may feel very strongly that they are really a girl.  They would be called a trans woman.  If someone was labelled a ‘girl’ at birth, and they later realise that they are male, they would be called a trans man.
Gender Identity:  a person’s internal feelings, and the labels they use, such as male, female, or transgender.

# data[].attributes.headline
Meet the Transgender Student Suing North Carolina over Its Anti-LGBT "Bathroom Bill"

# data[].attributes.subject
Meet the Transgender Student Suing North Carolina over Its Anti-LGBT "Bathroom Bill"

# data[].attributes.body
Payton McGarry is a 20 year old transgender student at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro. He has decided to sue the state of North Carolina for the discriminatory HB2 law that was recently passed.

In his teens, McGarry began to identify as transgender. He has experienced not only verbal bullying and abuse, but also physical violence, especially in public restrooms. For example, McGarry says in the interview, “...this is distressing because I used the female restroom until it was not feasible for me to, until I was getting pushed, shoved, slapped, screamed at every time I went into a female bathroom.” While discussing how HB2 affects him directly, McGarry mentions that the law could jeopardize his rights to housing and employment. In regards to the passing of the bill, McGarry encourages Governor McCrory to learn more about LGBT issues, especially within North Carolina, in order to make more compassionate and informed decisions in the future. Despite the discrimination that he has experienced, McGarry has found supportive allies throughout the UNCG community, and emphasizes that his school stands behind him throughout the federal suit.

McGarry uses several rhetorical devices throughout the interview. For example, towards the beginning of the interview, McGarry mentions the specific discrimination and abuse that he’s experienced. This use of pathos allows readers to sympathize with McGarry, and perhaps see the situation in a different way.

McGarry says, “The real problem is that I could be denied access to programs. I could be denied access to housing. I could be denied employment.” His use of a list emphasizes to readers the true harm of this law and the effect that it has and will have upon him.

McGarry’s testimony provides a first-hand account of the struggles transgender people must endure, especially throughout the effects of HB2. His story manages to show the negative impact that this law has had upon the LGBT community in North Carolina.

Meet the Transgender Student Suing North Carolina over Its Anti-LGBT "Bathroom Bill." Democracy Now. N.p., 29 Mar. 2016. Web. 3                May 2016. <http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/29/meet_the_transgender_student_suing_north>.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Guests

This is viewer supported news

Last week, North Carolina enacted a sweeping anti-transgender law, widely considered to be the most wide-ranging anti-trans law to take effect this year. It was introduced after the city of Charlotte passed its own ordinance seeking to protect the right of transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. In Part 2 of our interview, Payton McGarry, a transgender student at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, talks about why he became a plaintiff in the federal lawsuit challenging the North Carolina law.

Watch Part 1 of our interview here.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman. In North Carolina, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit challenging a sweeping new law banning local governments from passing laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people in public accommodations. The law, known as House Bill 2, commonly called the "bathroom bill," is widely considered to be the most wide-ranging anti-transgender law to take effect this year, introduced after the city of Charlotte in North Carolina passed its own ordinance seeking to protect the right of transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

Well, Payton McGarry joins us now. He's a student at UNC-Greensboro. He's a plaintiff in the federal lawsuit filed to challenge the new North Carolina law. Also with us, Chase Strangio, a staff attorney at the ACLU.

So, Payton, if you would tell us your story, how you ended up being a lead plaintiff, what this law means to you? You're a 20-year-old student at Greensboro?

PAYTON McGARRY: You mean in support of the lawsuit?

PAYTON McGARRY: I have gotten nothing but overwhelming support from my campus. Several administrators have emailed me, saying, "If there's anything I can do, if there's anything you need, let me know." I've been approached by many students who tell me that they are extremely proud of what I'm doing. All of my professors have had nothing but gratitude, and they're very thankful that somebody is standing up for the rights of an already marginalized group in North Carolina.

JOAQUÍN CARCAÑO: Yes, I'm a transgender man, but I am a man. My family, my friends, my co-workers and many more in the state affirm my male identity. That is not something that can be stripped away by a bill such as this. But what has been attacked is a basic right, a right to feel protected and safe. As a male, I use the men's restroom, as I should. And through this bill, I have been denied a fundamental right that impacts me and many more in the state multiple times a day in our place of work and daily life.

PAYTON McGARRY: No, ma'am. I did follow it online, though.

Chase Strangio, as we wrap up, Governor McCrory's press secretary, spokesperson, Graham Wilson, said, "The governor looks forward to cheering for the UNC Tar Heels in the NCAA Final Four being played in Houston, a city that defeated a similar bathroom ordinance referendum last year with over 61% of the vote."

I want to thank you both for being with us, Chase Strangio, a staff attorney at the ACLU, and Payton McGarry, plaintiff in the federal lawsuit filed this week to challenge the new North Carolina law, HB 2, known as the "bathroom bill." This is Democracy Now! I'm Amy Goodman. To see Part 1 of this conversation, go to democracynow.org. Thanks so much for joining us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the Transgender Student Suing North Carolina over Its Anti-LGBT "Bathroom Bill" (Part 2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is viewer supported news Last week, North Carolina enacted a sweeping anti-transgender law, widely considered to be the most wide-ranging anti-trans law to take effect this year. It was introduced after the city of Charlotte passed its own ordinance seeking to protect the right of transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

# data[].attributes.headline
HB2 Simply Balances Conflicting Privacy Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
HB2 Simply Balances Conflicting Privacy Rights

# data[].attributes.body
One of the main reasons of support of the HB2 bill is that privacy of the nontransgenders (cisgenders) will be harmed if people of opposing biological sexes are permitted to enter their bathrooms.

The article discusses reasons why permitting transgenders into bathrooms for the opposite sex is harming the privacy of the cisgenders. The author also discusses that transgender folks are almost being greedy in the situation. He explains how transgenders are not thinking about how the privacy of cisgenders will be harmed. He lastly explains that the bill is actually helping out transgender people. He talks about how the bill promotes creating genderneutral, single-occupancy bathrooms in schools that will allow transgenders to use bathrooms without harming the privacy of others.

The author uses hypothetical situations to describe all the bad situations that could occur in bathrooms without the HB2 bill. He talks about how people will be forced to see body parts of the other sex in their own bathroom. Also speaks in a conversational like manner to almost make it seem that gender separated bathrooms are the obvious solution like when he makes the understatement: “hardly a radical idea.”

It is necessary to be included to provide the view of those who are in support of the bill. It also provides justification in the view of those in support for the bill. Also, it helps to include this source because it is written by a well-educated man who is the law professor at Campbell University.

Wallace, E. Gregory. "HB2 Simply Balances Conflicting Privacy Rights." The News

& Observer. News & Observer, 26 Apr. 2016. Web. 2 May 2016.

<http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article74036667.html>.

Transgender activists, corporations, entertainers and the media have blasted North Carolina for adopting a law that requires people to use bathrooms based on their physical anatomy rather than on the gender with which they self-identify.

The controversy began in Charlotte where the city council repealed an existing ordinance that specifically excepted restrooms, locker rooms, showers, dormitory lodging and similar facilities from the prohibition on sex discrimination in the city’s public accommodations ordinance. At the same time, the city council added sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) as protected classes under the ordinance.

Public accommodations laws prohibit discrimination against certain classes of persons by private businesses, organizations or facilities that sell goods or provide services to the public. The legal effect of Charlotte’s repeal of the restroom exception plus addition of the SOGI protections was that Charlotte businesses and other places open to the public could no longer separate men and women in bathrooms and similar facilities on the basis of gender or gender identity.

The North Carolina state legislature convened a special session before the Charlotte ordinance went into effect and passed the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, otherwise known has HB2. The law voided Charlotte’s ordinance and pre-empted similar efforts by localities in the future.

State lawmakers passed House Bill 2 because Charlotte’s ordinance departed from long-accepted social norms.

Giving persons with male anatomy the legal right to use female bathrooms, showers or locker rooms (and vice versa) raises serious privacy concerns. The bathroom provision of HB2 creates a simple rule: If you have male anatomy, you use the male bathroom; if you have female anatomy, you use the female bathroom – hardly a radical idea.

Transgender persons say HB2 discriminates against them because it doesn’t let them use the bathroom of their choice. Those with male anatomy who identify as female want to use female bathrooms, and those with female anatomy who identify as male want to use male bathrooms. They say it makes them uncomfortable to use bathrooms based on their physical anatomy.

Until recently, no one thought that separating persons in multi-occupancy bathrooms, showers and locker rooms based on their physical anatomy was discriminatory. Courts routinely have ruled that such separate facilities do not violate laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex or gender.

Why do we have separate bathrooms and locker rooms in the first place? It’s because men and women have different bodies, and we want to protect privacy related to our bodies, not our gender identities.

If transgender persons are given the legal right to use facilities of their choice, nontransgender persons will be required to disrobe, shower and perform personal bodily functions in the presence of those with intimate body parts different from their own. While transgender persons have legitimate privacy concerns, so do nontransgender persons.

HB2 balances the conflicting privacy rights. On the one hand, it permits accommodations for transgender persons in public schools and other government facilities, such as single-occupancy bathrooms; on the other, it requires that multi-occupancy bathrooms be separate based on physical anatomy. State legislators recognize that once you privilege gender identity over bodily privacy, there no longer is any reason to separate bathrooms, showers and locker rooms on the basis of sex.

Transgender activists have sued to overturn HB2 and point to a recent federal court ruling to bolster their claims, but that decision did not involve competing privacy rights.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes North Carolina, ruled that a Virginia public school must comply with the Obama administration’s broad interpretation of federal law and permit transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. The court considered bathrooms only, not showers and locker rooms, and the bathrooms in the school had been altered to ensure that no students’ genitals would be exposed. The decision did not address situations where genitals are exposed.

The Fourth Circuit likewise did not decide whether government rules that give transgender persons a legal right to use the bathroom, locker room or shower of their choice undermine the constitutional privacy rights of nontransgender persons. Several courts have said there is a constitutional right not to be seen by members of the opposite sex when undressed.

Privacy rights in multi-occupancy bathrooms, showers and locker rooms are a zero-sum game – whatever one person gains, another loses. Transgender activists want the law to protect their privacy and comfort, but not anyone else’s.

Is that fair?

E. Gregory Wallace is a law professor at Campbell University School of Law. The views expressed are his own and not attributable to Campbell University.

# data[].attributes.headline
“What Experts from States with Laws on the Books Say" Infrographic 

# data[].attributes.subject
“What Experts from States with Laws on the Books Say" Infrographic 

# data[].attributes.body
Many of the other states in the United States have allowed transgender individuals to use the restroom of their gender. This infographic displays information about some of these states and why they are against the HB2 law.

This infographic contains direct quotes from officials of several states in the United States. These direct quotes allow the audience to realize the several viewpoints on the issue of the HB2 law. In this case, all of the officials oppose the HB2 law, and this creates a picture that every other state is against the HB2 law. All the quotes are also properly accredited to the right people, therefore, it is also a reliable piece of information.

In this piece, the viewpoints of several officials from different states are summarized by single, influential quotes. It also provides proof against the HB2 law. The quotes mention that there is no need for the HB2 law because there is no increase in rape and sexual assault and that there have been very few problems with this issue to create a whole new law about it.

This infographic is important to include in the conservation because it presents the side which several states support. The infographic really supports one of the popular viewpoints of this issue, and it is important to assess the evidence that this supports. It also presents the information in an easily readable form that attracts readers and really does summarize the reason for opposition against the law.

Media Matters. "What Experts from States with Laws on the Books Say."  Infographic.

Identities.mic. Mic.com, n.d. Web. 2 May 2016.
<http://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-              people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.FtzKbhaXE>.

# data[].attributes.headline
Obama administration says HB2 violates federal civil rights laws

# data[].attributes.subject
Obama administration says HB2 violates federal civil rights laws

# data[].attributes.body
As HB2 has become an increasingly controversial issue in North Carolina, the question has been raised: whether the Obama Administration should get involved, or is this overreach of  the federal government imposing on a State issue?

However, on May 4th, this question was finally put to rest when the The U.S. Department of Justice ruled that the HB2 Bill in the Tar Heel State infringes on state’s rights due to the fact that it was in violation of Title IX.

In Mark Binker’s article, which was published on WRAL, Binker summarizes the U.S. Department of Justice’s letter to Governor Pat McCrory. Binker also examines the possible consequences of the Obama Administration’s ruling that House Bill 2 violates the Title IX, which is part of the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. He points out that this ruling comes with a hefty fine to the already pricey HB2 bill, which has already rung up a total of over $500 million in economic losses. Many of the funds threatening to be cut through the violation of Title IX will affect state universities, such as UNC, and the DOJ’s letter to UNC is embedded in this particular source.

Binker also includes McCrory's response to the U.S. Department of Justice’s ruling on the bill. McCrory claims that the court’s ruling is a federal overreach due to the fact that the government has no right to be “bathroom police.” However, despite McCrory’s refusal to repeal the bill, the economic losses invoked by the cuts in funding from Title IX funds are essentially pressing North Carolina’s Governor to get rid of the Bill once and for all.

Throughout the article, Binker uses a plethora of logical appeal to empathize his argument that the court's ruling ultimately killed the HB2 in North Carolina. Binker builds this logical appeal through a series of statistics. For example, when he quotes Chris Sgro, Equality NC Executive Director, stating, “‘We've already lost $500 million in economic impact.’” Not only does Binker give an actual number for the amount of money lost due to the HB2 Bill in NC, but by quoting Sgro he builds his credibility. Binker also embeds both the letter from the U.S. Department of Justice written to McCrory, and the letter written from DOJ to UNC. By Binker including these letters in his article, this makes Binker a more credible author because he is getting his information directly from the original sources.

Binker presents both sides of the argument in his article, by first explaining what HB2 is, what rights it violates, ect. in the introduction, and then in the conclusion Binker includes several quotes by McCrory attacking the U.S. Department of Justice’s ruling. By presenting both sides of the argument in his article, this makes Binker a more credible source.

Binker, Mark. "Obama Administration Says HB2 Violates Federal Civil Rights Laws." WRAL. Capitol Broadcasting Company, 4 May 2016. Web. 4 May 2016. <http://www.wral.com/obama–administration–says–hb2–violates–federal–civil–rights–laws/15682472/>.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
- North Carolina's controversial House Bill 2 violates federal civil rights laws by preventing transgender state workers from using the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice, the U.S. Justice Department told Gov. Pat McCrory on Wednesday.

In a letter to McCrory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta gave McCrory until next Monday to "remedy" the violations associated with House Bill 2. In essence, the federal government wants the state to say it will not enforce the measure.

"Specifically, the State is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees and both you, in your official capacity, and the State are engaging in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of Title VII rights by transgender employees of public agencies," the letter reads.

The letter goes on to say the University of North Carolina has been notified that, by enforcing the law, it could be violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a finding that could threaten federal funding for the UNC system.

Justice Department officials would not speak for attribution about the letter, but they did say that the department hopes the state will come into voluntary compliance with federal law. Officials also said the department has a variety of tools at its disposal if the state chooses to keep House Bill 2 in place.

"This is one interpretation by one agency," McCrory told members of the North Carolina Chamber on Wednesday evening, saying it was too early to say how the state would respond.

UNC System President Margaret Spellings issued a statement saying that her office was reviewing the Justice Department's letter and would consult with McCrory and lawmakers.

A separate letter sent to Secretary of Public Safety Frank Perry states that the department, as a recipient of federal funding from the Office on Violence Against Women,is in violation of the non-discrimination provision of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 if it complies with House Bill 2.

House Speaker Tim Moore said he was disappointed and frustrated by the administration's letter.

"In lieu of going through the normal legislative process, the Obama administration has once again tried to issue an edict from the Civil Rights Division to send down to the states," said Moore, R-Cleveland.

He said the administration is setting a "dangerous precedent" by upsetting normal expectations of privacy.

Lawmakers passed House Bill 2 in March as a response to a Charlotte ordinance allowing transgender individuals to use the restroom of their choice in public accommodations. Although the bill overturned that local measure, it went further, setting limits on what kind of nondiscrimination measures local governments can enforce and wiping away the ability for workers to sue for employment discrimination in North Carolina courts.

Although he initially balked at calling lawmakers back to town for the special session to draft House Bill 2, McCrory, a Republican, signed it the same night it was passed.

McCrory continued to blame the Charlotte City Council for sparking the firestorm and LGBT advocates for fanning the flames in recent weeks. Like Moore, he said the Justice Department's stance amounts to federal overreach, telling the N.C. Chamber members that no government should be the "bathroom police" for private businesses.

"The Obama administration has not only staked out its position for North Carolina, but for all states, universities and most employers in the U.S.," he said in a separate statement. "The right and expectation of privacy in one of the most private areas of our personal lives is now in jeopardy."

Critics of the law hailed the Justice Department's action.

"The letter confirms what we've already known - that HB2 is deeply discriminatory, violates federal civil rights law and needs to be repealed as soon as possible," Equality NC Executive Director Chris Sgro said in a statement.

Sgro was appointed to an open seat in the state House after House Bill 2 became law.

"We've already lost $500 million in economic impact, and now we are violating federal civil rights law and risking Title IX funding. This is a travesty and an embarrassment for North Carolina. There is a repeal bill filed in the House, and it should be considered immediately," he said.

Wake County authorities have said enforcing the bathroom provision is a very low priority for law enforcement, noting that the law doesn't spell out any penalties for people caught using the wrong bathroom.

Moore wouldn't comment on what the state might do in reaction to the Justice Department letter, saying that he first wanted to consult with McCrory and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger. Asked what the next steps in reaction to the DOJ letter might be, McCrory said, "I don't know," adding that lawyers for his administration were reviewing it.

"We think it's a huge overreach by the federal government, and we take great exception to it," Moore said.

The Justice Department's letter more than likely sets up a showdown in the federal courts. The law has already been challenged by citizen plaintiffs, but a direct legal confrontation between the state and federal governments could have wide-ranging consequences and, perhaps, be argued more quickly.

"This is a gross overreach by the Obama Justice Department that deserves to be struck down in federal court," Berger, R-Rockingham, said in a statement.

"H.B. 2, which took effect on March 23, 2016, is facially discriminatory against transgender employees on the basis of sex because it treats transgender employees, whose gender identity does not match their 'biological sex,' as defined by H.B. 2, differently from similarly situated non-transgender employees," Gupta wrote for the Justice Department. "Under H.B. 2, non-transgender state employees may access restrooms and changing facilities that are consistent with their gender identity in public buildings, while transgender state employees may not."

House Bill 2 has become an issue in many political campaigns, including McCrory's re-election effort.

"Enough is enough," Attorney General Roy Cooper, McCrory's Democratic rival, said in a statement. "It's time for the Governor to put our schools and economy first and work to repeal this devastating law,"

Other state officials also weighed in on the Justice Department's action.

"To use our children and their educational futures as pawns to advance an agenda that will ultimately open those same children up to exploitation at the hands of sexual predators is, by far, the sickest example of the depths the Obama Administration will stoop to fundamentally transform our nation," Lt. Gov. Dan Forest said in a statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama administration says HB2 violates federal civil rights laws :: WRAL.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
North Carolina's controversial House Bill 2 violates federal civil rights laws by preventing transgender state workers from using the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice, the U.S. Justice Department told Gov. Pat McCrory on Wednesday. In a letter to McCrory, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta gave McCrory until next Monday to "remedy" the violations associated with House Bill 2.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgender Bathrooms 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgender Bathrooms 

# data[].attributes.body
Rape and sexual assault are one of the reasons why the HB2 law was created. There is a constant fear that transgender individuals in restroom of thier gender will increase the possiblity and abundance of sexual assault and rape. This particular viewpoint is expressed in this article by a woman who is a victim of rape. In this article, she expresses her fear of increased sexual assault and her support of the HB2 law.

In her piece, Triller uses several rhetorical strategies to validate her point. Her strongest strategy is emotional and powerful language. She uses a lot of heavy and meaningful phrases that connect to the audience in an emotional way. Another instance when she appeals to ethos include when she references God, which holds a lot of sentimental value. She also makes use of a personal tone and anecdotes. In her anecdotes, she reveals that she was a victim of rape and how she had to suffer through a lot of hardships related to it. Her tone shines through her writing, creating a very personal atmosphere, making it hard to argue against her.

The author believes that transgender individuals need to have separate restrooms and lockers to avoid instances of rape and sexual assault. The author does not support the stereotype that all transgender individuals are ‘predators’. But, she feels that some people with malicious intent can impersonate transgenders and sexually assault the women or men in the restroom or locker room. Triller, being a victim of rape, feels that there should be some level of protection for potential victims, especially women.

This article was included in this collection because it provides a convincing and strong point of view of the HB2 law. It provides personal and statistical information in a well written format that supports her argument skillfully. Her argument presents a case that many people do not agree with and provides readers with a fresh take on the issue of whether transgender individuals should have their own separate bathrooms, which differentiates it from most arguments heard in the political arena today.

Triller, Kaeley. "A Rape Survivor Speaks out about Transgender Bathrooms." The Federalist.

Federalist, 23 Nov. 2015. Web. 2 May 2016.

<http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/a-rape-survivor-speaks-out-about-transgender-bathrooms/>.

"There’s no way to make everyone happy about transgender bathrooms and locker rooms. So the priority ought to be finding a way to keep everyone safe."

A few months ago, I registered for “The Story Workshop” at the Allender Center in Seattle. Primarily aimed at helping survivors of sexual abuse find the purpose and weight in their fractured personal narratives, the conference promised to be intense but deeply healing.

So when three unrelated friends randomly mailed me substantial checks with notes that said, “I don’t know why, but I think God wants me to give this to you” all within the same week, I took the hint and signed up for the workshop. I had been waiting more than seven years.

I don’t know exactly what I expected. I was naively hopeful that I would get a few good writing tips that would enable me to beautify my past and approach it like one of Aesop’s fables—third-person fiction with a perfect little moral at the end of the story.

Hating the Little Girl I Once Was

That’s not what happened. One of the pre-assignments was to write 700 words about a painful childhood memory. I was surprised at the one I chose. It wasn’t a heavy hitter, so to speak. I wrote about a Polaroid picture I kept rediscovering in a shoebox at my parents’ house, and my inability to figure out why looking at it made me want to rip it to shreds.

I’m about ten years old in the picture, with scraggly hair, pale skin, and a vacant expression. I’m wearing my mom’s oversized knit sweater and Oxford shoes my dad had bought me. In my hands is a piece of green felt I’d cut into the shape of New York for a school report about a U.S. state. Coincidentally or not, New York is the place my abuser had recently moved. I think I wanted to be closer to him. Don’t try to understand it. I still don’t.

‘Why do you hate the little girl in that picture so much?’

My small group dissected the story with grace and insight that could only be offered by those who spoke the same horrific language of shame and rage and grief. I felt nothing as I spoke about it. “It is what it is,” I remember saying, committed to my ambivalence. My group leader brushed away a tear and said, “Kaeley, this story breaks my heart. Why do you hate the little girl in that picture so much?” I couldn’t access her understanding or her empathy. I recognized the accuracy of her assessment, but I didn’t know how to change it.

Later that evening, one of the workshop presenters tasked us with a seemingly benign activity. We were instructed to play with crayons and miniature tubs of play dough on the tables in front of us. I hated these types of exercises. I thought they were such a waste of time. I reached for a purple crayon and reluctantly complied. I drew a picture of a flower and rolled a snake out of my play dough. And I burst into tears.

Someone Protect This Little Girl

The invitation to engage as a child had revealed my whole dilemma: I didn’t hate the little girl in the photo. I hated her need. I hated her anonymity. I hated the visible proof that she loved her abuser. I hated that she didn’t know any better, that it took her another ten years to figure out why she still slept with the light on and showered in her underwear and vigilantly lined the crack under the bathroom door with a beach towel and destroyed her teeth with gum she relentlessly chewed as a means of escaping the recollection of his breath on her face. I hated that he fooled her. He fooled everybody. He was really good.

She still slept with the light on and showered in her underwear and vigilantly lined the crack under the bathroom door with a beach towel.

“Wake up!” I wanted to scream at her. “Can’t you see what’s going on? Do something about it!”

It’s the same desperate inclination I’m fighting today. Everywhere I read in the news, there’s talk of another school or gym or business that is boldly adopting “progressive” new locker room policies designed to create equal rights for people who identify as transgender. These policies allow transgender individuals to use the locker room consistent with the sex they identify as their own, regardless of anatomy.

While some have proposed a third option for transgender people (single-occupancy restrooms and showers), this option has been largely struck down, and employees are prohibited from suggesting it, as it is considered discriminatory and emotionally damaging to a group of people who are working so hard to fit in. The solution? Anyone can use whatever restroom he or she wants without being questioned.

Victimizers Use Any Opening They Can Find

I read these reports, and my heart starts to race. They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I amsaying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters.

There are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit.

While I feel a deep sense of empathy for what must be a very difficult situation for transgender people, at the beginning and end of the day, it is nothing short of negligent to instate policies that elevate the emotional comfort of a relative few over the physical safety of a large group of vulnerable people.

Don’t they know anything about predators? Don’t they know the numbers? That out of every 100 rapes, only two rapists will spend so much as single day in jail while the other 98 walk free and hang out in our midst? Don’t they know that predators are known to intentionally seek out places where many of their preferred targets gather in groups? That perpetrators are addicts so committed to their fantasies they’ll stop at nothing to achieve them?

Do they know that more than 99 percent of single-victim incidents are committed by males? That they are experts in rationalization who minimize their number of victims? Don’t they know that insurance companies highlight locker rooms as a high-risk area for abuse that should be carefully monitored and protected?

Predators are known to intentionally seek out places where many of their preferred targets gather in groups.

Don’t they know that one out of every four little girls will be sexually abused during childhood, and that’s withoutgiving predators free access to them while they shower? Don’t they know that, for women who have experienced sexual trauma, finding the courage to use a locker room at all is a freaking badge of honor? That many of these women view life through a kaleidoscope of shame and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, dissociation, poor body image, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, difficulty with intimacy, and worse?

Why would people knowingly invite further exploitation by creating policies with no safeguards in place to protect them from injury? With zero screening options to ensure that biological males who enter locker rooms actually identify as female, how could a woman be sure the person staring at her wasn’t exploiting her? Why is it okay to make her wonder?

What About Women’s and Children’s Rights?

“Wake up!” I want to scream. “Can’t you see what’s going on? Do something about it!”

Despite the many reports of sexual abuse and assault that exist in our world, there’s an even larger number of victims who never tell about it. The reason? They’re afraid no one will believe them. Even worse, they’re terrified of a reality they already innately know to be true: even if people did know, they wouldn’t do anything to help. They’re not worth protecting. Even silence feels better than that.

Survivors are terrified of a reality they already innately know to be true: even if people did know, they wouldn’t do anything to help.

There’s no way to make everyone happy in the situation of transgender locker room use. So the priority ought to be finding a way to keep everyone safe. I’d much rather risk hurting a smaller number of people’s feelings by asking transgender people to use a single-occupancy restroom that still offers safety than risk jeopardizing the safety of thousands of women and kids with a policy that gives would-be predators a free pass.

Is it ironic to no one that being “progressive” actually sets women’s lib back about a century? What of my right to do my darndest to insist that the first time my daughter sees the adult male form it will be because she’s chosen it, not because it’s forced upon her? What of our emotional and physical rights? Unless and until you’ve lined a bathroom door with a towel for protection, you can’t tell me the risk isn’t there.

For me, healing looks like staring at the little girl in a Polaroid photo and validating her need to be seen, heard, and protected instead of hating it. It looks like telling my story, even the parts I can never make pretty, in hopes it will help break the anonymity of survivors and create a sense of responsibility in others to act.

Don’t Let Innocents Get Hurt Before You Rethink This

I still battle my powerlessness to do anything that feels substantial to affect change, but the good Lord didn’t bring me out of Egypt and set my feet upon a rock so I could stand idly by in the face of danger. So even if a little article or Facebook post doesn’t ultimately change the world, it’s better than silent resignation to negligence and harm. I feel a sense of urgency to invite people to consider the not-so-hidden dangers of these policies before more and more of them get cemented into place. Once that happens, the only way they’ll change is when innocent people get hurt.

Consider the not-so-hidden dangers of these policies before more and more of them get cemented into place.

Even if there aren’t hundreds of abusers rushing into locker rooms by the dozens, the question I keep asking myself is, “What if just one little girl gets hurt by this? Would that be enough to make people reconsider it?”

“And what if that little girl was me?” It’s a question I really don’t want to ask. But God’s grace has enabled me to value the face in the photo enough to realize that I have to. And even if I don’t like the answer, at least I wasn’t silent.

Kaeley Triller Haver studied English at Northwest University and puts her education to use as the communications director of a local nonprofit organization. Of all the titles she's ever held, Kaeley considers "mom" the most significant.

# data[].attributes.headline
How I Learned to Hate Transgender People

# data[].attributes.subject
How I Learned to Hate Transgender People

# data[].attributes.body
Opposition to transgender bathroom bills is not only due to privacy concerns- it also stems from a lack of understanding and acceptance of transgender people as a whole. American society and media constantly reinforce the idea that being transgender is freakish or something to be laughed at rather than a legitimate identity as respectable as any other.

In his article, Cord Jefferson addresses how he himself had grown up to laugh at and be disgusted by transgender people through the shows he watched in movies and on TV. He points out the disparity between the media and real life: on screen, transgender people are seen as predators out to trick people into having sex with them by “lying” about their gender. In reality, the real predators are cisgender (non-transgender) people who rape, beat, and murder transgender people out of fear, hate, and ignorance with few, if any, legal consequences. He concludes by acknowledging how he has grown to be more accepting and no longer use transgender people as a punchline.

Jefferson’s use of personal experience is a key strategy that helps strengthen his argument. By discussing how he himself held prejudices against transgender people, he portrays himself as someone just like everyone else, rather than as a saint who never believed any negative stereotypes, which would have alienated his audience. His use of specific examples increases his credibility as they enable him to substantiate his claim that the media contributes to the negative perception of transgender people. His choice of structure also strongly benefits his argument- he discusses how transgender people are seen as predators in fictitious shows, and uses that to make a shift to how predators in reality are cisgender people with hateful misconceptions.

This text is included in the discussion because it addresses an underlying issue that affects how we perceive bathroom bills, namely the lack of understanding of what it means to be transgender and why the right to use the bathroom of their identified gender is so significant to them. By acknowledging the lack of understanding of the transgender community, people can work to learn more and make better informed decisions, not only regarding bathroom bills but in many other aspects of society.

Jefferson, Cord. "How I Learned to Hate Transgender People." The Daily Good.

Good Worldwide, 1 July 2011. Web. 5 May 2016. <https://www.good.is/

articles/how-i-learned-to-hate-transgender-people>.

The first time I openly laughed at a transgender person I was 12 years old. It was February, but I grew up in Tucson, Arizona, so the movie theater in which I was seeing Ace Ventura: Pet Detective had the AC on. The laughter helped me shake off the chill.

We, the audience, had just learned that Sean Young's character, Lt. Lois Einhorn, was transgender. Prior to identifying herself as Lois Einhorn, she'd been the pro football player Ray Finkle, who everyone thought was an at-large criminal. "Einhorn is Finkle!" screamed Jim Carrey, cracking the case before our very eyes. "Finkle is Einhorn! Einhorn is a man!" Then, more to himself: "Einhorn is a man?" Then he went to vomit.

The joke, if you can call it that, rested upon an earlier scene in which Carrey kissed Lt. Einhorn. "Your gun is digging into my hip," he'd told her as they made out. Now the memory of kissing a transgender woman was forcing Carrey to puke profusely, burn his clothes, and weep. In the background played Boy George's "The Crying Game," the hit song from two years earlier that had soundtracked a dramatic film with a prominent transgender character.

Looking back, I'm ashamed at how much I guffawed at Carrey's revulsion. We all know what the real joke was—it was disgusting to kiss Einhorn because there's something weird and gross about transgender people. The mockery gets especially debased when Carrey forcefully trips Einhorn down in front of an army of police officers in order to expose her tucked-away penis. Everyone dry heaves when they see the bulge. Carrey eventually tells someone to "read it its rights."

The laughter at transgender people's expense didn't end there, either. One month after Ace Ventura premiered I saw Naked Gun 33 1/3, the hit comedy in which Anna Nicole Smith's character does a sexy silhouette striptease that ends up revealing a penis. Once again, her former suitors are appalled. Then there's the famous Tone Loc frat anthem "Funky Cold Medina," the second verse of which finds Loc talking about a girl he meets named Sheena. After the two flirt, Loc takes Sheena home, where it's revealed that she's transgender. The rapper, who you might remember also co-starred in Ace Ventura, throws Sheena out of his house, saying, "I don't fool around with no Oscar Mayer wiener." Even in supposedly queer-friendly movies like 1991's Soapdish you'll find characters disgusted by transgender people, like when Robert Downey Jr. gags after having a romantic interlude with a trans woman.

Repugnance is a common theme in the trans-people-as-jokes canon. But more prevalent is the element of deceit. Time and again in both comedic and dramatic films, transgender people are cast as deviant tricksters out to fool innocent victims into sleeping with them. This narrative plays upon two of America's deepest fears: sexual vulnerability and humiliation. Not only is your sex partner "lying" about their gender, victims who "fall for it" are then forced to grapple with the embarrassment of being had, of being seen as gay. Men "tricked" into sleeping with another man are embarrassed by the threat to their masculinity. So much culture has taught us that transgender people aren't just sexual aliens, they're also predatory liars.

In reality, we know the real predators are straight people afraid of transgender interlopers. Transgender men and women have been raped, beaten, and killed, often with impunity, throughout history, but only recently have we been keeping count. In 1993 Brandon Teena was raped by two former friends after they discovered he was born a woman. Teena reported the rape, but his local sheriff, who called Teena "it," refused to arrest the attackers. Five days after assaulting him, they returned and murdered him. Similarly, in 2002, four acquaintances of Gwen Araujo, a 17-year-old girl in California, beat and strangled her to death after discovering she was transgender. In all, the Human Rights Campaign estimates one out of every 1,000 murders a year are transgender hate crimes.

More recent cultural depictions of transgender characters are less reactionary, but they're still not very humanizing. A character on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphiadid date a transgender woman, but they concentrated most of the jokes around his girlfriend's big penis. And in the recent hit sequel The Hangover 2, Ed Helms has sex with a transgender prostitute who may or may not have taken advantage of him when he was too drunk to function (once again, trans folks are portrayed as predatory). We have made some progress, sure, but tell that to the transgender woman who was beaten into a seizure in Baltimore in April. We've still got a long way to go.

In the years since I laughed along with Ace Ventura, I've grown up and stopped getting a kick out of LGBT people—you could say I've gotten better. I've also started to consider what I was laughing at in the first place. I'm willing to agree that society is improved if we grant some leeway to comedians and artists to push the limits. But when pushing the limits becomes debasing an entire group of people as twisted quasi-rapists, we cross the line from comedy to bigotry. When I was laughing at Ace Ventura I was laughing because I was uncomfortable with a biological man living as a woman. I have to wonder if Brandon Teena's killers laughed, too.

# data[].attributes.headline
Blake: I am an NC Woman. HB2 is not protecting me.

# data[].attributes.subject
Blake: I am an NC Woman. HB2 is not protecting me.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the main arguments used to justify the passing of bathroom bills such as HB2 is that such bills serve to protect women and children from potentially dangerous male predators who would attack them in restrooms.

In her article, Casey Blake identifies herself as one of the North Carolina women that HB2 is supposedly protecting. She refutes the idea that bathroom bills protect her and other women by pointing out that the economic repercussions of this bill are harming people more than predators could ever could. She also points out that the NCGA has made plenty of decisions that harm women, such as increasing wait times on abortions, reducing access to birth control, and now subjecting transgender women and girls to physical violence by forcing them to use the men’s room. She questions the validity of the idea that the NCGA is trying to protect women when so many of their other actions have only harmed women, and considering this new bill only caused new problems.

She uses specific examples to point out logical fallacies in the popular argument, such as rape statistics committed by cisgender (non-transgender) men, numerous examples of businesses that have boycotted NC over the bill, and North Carolina laws that have been more detrimental than helpful to women. These logical examples are significant as they substantiate her claim that HB2 is not about protecting women.

Her pointed and angry tone also makes her argument more persuasive. She addresses topics such as discrimination and rape without any sort of moderation or sugar-coating. Her tone helps her argument as she uses it to bluntly address the issues the bill supposedly protects against and disprove them quickly and tersely. Her position as a North Carolina woman establishes her credibility as someone whose opinion is actually valid and relevant in this issue, because her demographic is the one for whom this bill was supposedly passed in the first place.

This text was included in the Padlet as it is a distinct perspective from a woman who is not only affected by the bill, but supposed to be protected by the bill. Her perspective is more relevant than that of someone who does not live in the state of North Carolina or someone whose safety is not contingent on this bill. If she and other women, who are the primary group of people protected by HB2, do not feel like this bill serves to protect them, it then begs the question: what is this bill really for?

Blake, Casey. "Blake: I am an NC woman. HB 2 is not protecting me."

Citizen-Times. USA Today, 26 Mar. 2016. Web. 5 May 2016.

<http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2016/03/26/

blake-north-carolina-hb2-lgbt-nc-column-mccrory-ncga/82264978/>

As a North Carolinian woman who has used public restrooms in every region of our state over the last couple of decades, I would like to personally thank our legislators for their urgency in protecting me, all my lady friends and their children in all the rooms where we urinate.

The nearly $50,000 they spent Wednesday to ensure that a biological male who identifies as a woman, as Caitlyn Jenner did, visits North Carolina next month, she will be legally forced to lift her skirt in front of a urinal rather use than a toilet in the women’s restroom, then apply her lipstick alongside a group of men, was a lovely gesture.

It was a gesture that cost us the equivalent of a desperately-needed North Carolina school teacher’s salary, but a gesture all the same.

When the Republican-controlled legislature rode in on its white horse this week, flanked by 11 Democrats and GOP Gov. Pat McCrory, they aimed to “protect the privacy of its women and children,” from the big bad Charlotte City Council, which wanted to allow transgender individuals in their city to use the restrooms where they felt safest.

But as great displays of chivalry are wont to do, our leaders’ sudden burst of valor must have overwhelmed their ability to perform basic economic math, to predict national humiliation, to read and remember the United States Constitution and – in a particularly surprising twist – ignore the most fundamental tenet of their own political party: maintaining a small and unobtrusive government.

Like pulling out a chair for a lady then accidentally dumping her into a vat of molten lava, I’m sure this was just an honest mistake led by a group of Southern gentlemen with the best of intentions.

But now that the legislature and our governor have made an unequivocal statement that protecting us is clearly a priority for which no expense should be spared, I would like to offer some constructive suggestions as to how women like me would feel most protected going forward.

For one, I would feel much safer in a state where black men and women or Jewish Americans who want to sue for employment discrimination are able to do so. This law made that harder, so maybe we can start there.

I would feel significantly safer if my generation can still afford to build roads and, you know, have running water and stuff 20 years from now long after companies like American Airlines, Apple, Dow Chemical, Intel and a whole binder full of others all refuse to do business in our state following an action they and their accountants see as bigotry rather than valor, as they have already threatened to do.

Of course, what we don’t lose in opportunity costs there we may pay in legal fees once our state flipping the bird at the US Constitution inevitably goes through another costly court battle for the second time in as many years. But hey, you can’t put a price on protecting our ladies’ privacy.

Women’s issues aside, I’d feel safer if our governor didn’t sign any more unprecedentedly far-reaching legislation that cripples local governments' basic legal efficacy in the dark of night, 12 hours after it was first introduced. For those keeping score, that’s one sixth of the 72 hours NC law says a woman needs to mull over having an abortion. But we all know it takes women longer to make decisions, am I right?

As a resident of Asheville, it would be a huge relief to me if our tourism-based economy can continue attracting tourists, despite campaigns from states like Montana who's governor released a meme this week reading, “Dear North Carolina, We are open for business … for everyone. #ChooseMontana." Of course, if Montana isn't enough of a detraction, Funny or Die has a great-for-tourism video that opens with, "Ah, North Carolina. Home of beaches, mountains and an extremely homophobic Governor."

Personally, I feel more protected when my local economy isn’t crippled, but maybe that’s just the vapors again.

From a maternal view, one of my now thoroughly-protected lady friends is raising a 17-year-old who was born biologically male, but identifies as female and gets straight A’s amid regular torment and bullying. I’d feel much safer if she weren’t legally forced to go into bathrooms alongside boys who call her a freak and almost certainly could harm her physically. That's what she'll be forced to do now.

Take it from a woman. Blocking the schoolhouse doors wasn’t a cute look in 1963 and blocking the women’s room is an even less flattering one in 2016.

I bet many of my fellow ladies would feel safer knowing our children aren’t receiving the third lowest-funded education in the country. That's where the National Education Association ranks our per-pupil spending.

I would also feel safer if North Carolinians couldn’t buy guns without a trace of paperwork in less time than it takes to obtain birth control. Perhaps an emergency session can be called for that?

Of course, if women's physical safety is the cause at hand, we could use plenty of help on the NCGA's new most important issue.

While I have never once heard of a man feigning a transgender identity walking into the restroom and raping a woman, actual statistics tell us that one in six women will be sexually assaulted next year by men who, history tells us, will be dressed as men.

If keeping women safe from harm is such an urgent concern to our state’s leaders – as they have made so clear this week on a national stage – I’m sure we can expect them to treat that threat with equal fervor any day now.

I’ll be watching, and I hope other North Carolina voters will be, too.

# data[].attributes.headline
Former NC Governor Calls for Compromise 

# data[].attributes.subject
Former NC Governor Calls for Compromise 

# data[].attributes.body
Former North Carolina governor Jim Martin recognizes the political, social, and economic turmoil that has engulfed the state since the signing of House Bill 2 on March 23, 2016.

Martin begins his statement with information regarding the recent isolation of North Carolina because of this bill. He mentions that several once-friendly companies and entertainers have “threatened to withdraw plans to expand into North Carolina”, and, “cancelled concerts, or threatened to do so”. Governor Martin admits that arguments regarding the social morality of House BIll 2 were ultimately inevitable, as the law provides an excellent platform for both right-wing and left-wing politicians to argue and prove different points about their own beliefs and values. However, Martin emphasizes that it’s time for a compromise, and that both parties or “sides” should take time to listen and genuinely consider the opposing argument. Martin argues that only from compromise can stem the political, social, and economic progression of North Carolina.

Throughout the piece, Martin uses several different rhetorical devices and strategies to support his claim that compromise is the necessary next step regarding this issue. Martin uses  terms such as “we”, “our”, and “us” often. For example, in paragraph 8 of the column, he says, “What can we do now?” Not only does the use of the word “we” create a sense of unity among Martin and the audience, but also among the Democratic and Republican parties, especially within the state of North Carolina.

In paragraphs 8 and 9, Martin uses pathos to help readers acknowledge and understand arguments and opinions perhaps different than their own. He says in paragraph 8, “We might learn how some young people have great difficulty dealing with their anatomy and hormones, in ways most of us could never begin to understand. Denying access to our state courts for protection leaves them vulnerable to harm from bullies. Our courts should be open for civil judgment. Hate crimes should be defined in enforceable law.” Martin appeals to human compassion within this paragraph, enlightening readers to tragic yet common issues and struggles which they might not be familiar with. In paragraph 9, Martin also reaches out to a sense of human compassion through his discussion of rape victims and their valid concerns: “On the other hand, we might learn also that some people have had terrible experiences with sexual predators, and are fearful of laws that could make it easier for one to slip into girls’ locker rooms. It is not fear of transgender individuals, who have probably already been using such facilities without incident.” Martin’s use of pathos in both instances helps to validate the argument of each side, and reinforces the need for compromise.

This piece was included in the conversation because it provides a nuanced argument that considers multiple “sides” of the issues regarding House Bill 2. Governor Martin remains profession and neutral throughout the column, providing information and equal emotional appeals for both the more liberal and conservative sides of the argument.

Martin, Jim. "Opinion: Former GOP governor calls for compromise on HB2."

WRAL. Capitol Broadcasting Company, 5 May 2016. Web. 5 May 2016.

<http://www.wral.com/opinion-former-gop-governor-calls-for-compromise-on-hb2/

15685153/>.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This column first appeared on the Higher Education Works Foundation website and is reprinted with the foundation's permission. By Jim Martin
How did we ever get ourselves into such a mess? Otherwise-friendly companies withdraw plans to expand to North Carolina, or threaten to do so. Popular entertainers cancel concerts here, or threaten to do so. They had no problem with North Carolina a year ago.

Who did this to us? We did.

An exercise in politics got caught up in politics. Charlotte City Council wanted an ordinance sought by LGBT voters, and finally, after the recent election, had a majority to adopt it. Most important was extending anti-discrimination rights based on sexual preferences and orientations. Then, against cautionary advice from legislators, the Governor, and even supportive editors, they went "one bridge too far." They added a right for transgender folks to use the bathroom of their choice, which they probably were using anyway. That was newsworthy.

What happened next was predictable, and forewarned: our North Carolina General Assembly called a special session to halt the ordinance before it took effect. Once House Bill 2, to repeal the bathroom ordinance, was open for amendment, strange things happened. Amendments that could have been taken up later were moved and approved with little debate or understanding. That was newsworthy.

The political reality is that this works great for both political parties. Each side can stand up for its respective, favored constituents. Democrats can stand firm in defense of liberal constituents and principles. Republicans can stand firm in defense of conservative constituents and principles. Neither has to listen to the other's legitimate concerns. Each can righteously blame the other for overacting.

That is where this debacle really started. Politics in North Carolina, and most of America, has become so polarized that we don't listen much to each other ... because we no longer have to. Some legislative districts are so safe for Republicans that electable candidates may ignore liberal concerns. Some are so safe for Democrats that electable candidates may ignore conservative concerns.

Another factor, by the way, is the choice of many good moderates to abandon both political parties, leaving each with less moderation, so to speak. That's a topic for another day.

What can we do now? First, both sides need to take time to listen to each other. We might learn how some young people have great difficulty dealing with their anatomy and hormones, in ways most of us could never begin to understand. Denying access to our state courts for protection leaves them vulnerable to harm from bullies. Our courts should be open for civil judgment. Hate crimes should be defined in enforceable law.

On the other hand, we might learn also that some people have had terrible experiences with sexual predators, and are fearful of laws that could make it easier for one to slip into girls' locker rooms. It is not fear of transgender individuals, who have probably already been using such facilities without incident. (In almost 80 years of occasional visits to public bathrooms, I have never once dared to check out the qualifications of those standing next to me, and doubt that you have.)

The concern is for unintended consequences on both sides of this issue. Maybe if we adopted stronger punishment for predatory pretenders who do sneak in and violate the criminal law, it might reassure those who have been molested and others who share their fears. Besides, that's an issue that would justify police action; unlike the City's ordinance and the State's HB2.

Some want to repeal all or parts of HB2. In this legislative session, partial repair may be possible; as some have indicated openness to reinstating access to the courts for civil remedies. With patience and goodwill, the court process should be restored.

The bathroom rule is another matter. If the City of Charlotte had not taken that step, we would be about where we were in 2015, with little public disturbance of big corporations, popular entertainers, sports leagues, and even daily newspapers; none of whom asked for this. Once that genie was called out of the bottle, a bigger genie was lurking in there, and it didn't like what the first genie did. It's possible this General Assembly could amend the bathroom clause of HB2, but it is problematic. No one yet has offered compromise language. A referendum has been suggested, and one can judge from their responses that both sides predict the same result. The General Assembly might be replaced, of course, but this issue will have far less effect on it than will each party's presidential candidate.

The federal courts could overrule HB2, depending frankly on which set of judges hears it on appeal. By the time it reaches the Supreme Court, it may again depend on the presidential winner. The saner course would be for the General Assembly to take up the issue, which it has effectively tabled, conduct thoughtful hearings, and work out a reasonable balance of interests. Let reason and fairness prevail.

For some, the issue of which bathroom to use requires an official blessing. For most, it never gets a second thought. Until we stir it up.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Former GOP governor calls for compromise on HB2 :: WRAL.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This column first appeared on the Higher Education Works Foundation website and is reprinted with the foundation's permission. By Jim Martin How did we ever get ourselves into such a mess? Otherwise-friendly companies withdraw plans to expand to North Carolina, or threaten to do so. Popular entertainers cancel concerts here, or threaten to do so.