Trent Horn goes to town on the logic of the so-called "bathroom bill" in North Carolina that requires people to use the bathroom corresponding with their biological sex as determined on their birth certificates. (What a world we have when you have to even parse that out.) He makes sound arguments and outlines how the bill is an entirely rational way of keeping people safe in our society.
But I wonder if there's a compromise possible in all this. What if the law simply said that you should use the bathroom that corresponds with your current plumbing? Or to put it more bluntly, if you can use a urinal, you use a men's room. Given that much of the argumentation for the bathroom bill has to do with security of women from men taking advantage of the law to ogle or assault them, then this would solve that, wouldn't it? I'm not expert in post-operative transgender psychology, but my guess is that people do this because they are not attracted to the opposite sex and so want to switch teams, i.e. a man becomes a woman because he finds men attractive. So having him use a ladies' room after his operation to remove... should present no problem.
What am I missing?
To be honest, it seems to me that the bathroom bill was just a cover for what NC’s GA really wanted to do. Many rights were taken away, including the right to contest a firing at the state level on the basis of religion, colour, creed, ability/disability, and even veteran status! This ill-conceived bill, which cost the taxpayers $42,000 just for this special assembly that was called, wasn’t even considered thoroughly before it passed (under protest) and the governor signed it. He’s now backpedalling, saying he wants to introduce a measure that will allow these groups to file at the state level (as opposed to going straight to federal, which would cost a lot more time and money), and also to add sexuality in addition to the other categories stated above. HB2 was a very bad idea to start with, and I sincerely hope it is repealed.