On Feb. 8, the Charlotte City Council is expected to discuss opening virtually all public bathrooms and showers in the city to members of the opposite sex by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression. Because gender identity is totally subjective, the effect of the ordinance would be to prevent any objection to men using a bathroom with women.
If you recall, an attempt to pass a similar ordinance was rejected by the city council, 6-5, last year. But the intervening election has changed the political composition of the council. The proposed City Code would allow the awarding of "damages, including compensation for humiliation and embarrassment and punitive damages ... and ... attorneys fees" to anyone refused admission to a bathroom.
Genesis 5:2 tells us: "Male and female He created them." Christ repeated that passage in Matthew 19:4: "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female.'" The Church, therefore, has always recognized that men and women are created by God to be different.
That teaching, however, is being directly challenged in today's society. A difference in sexual identity conflicts with the current radical ideology which attacks the very idea of sexual identity. That ideology contends that the differences between men and women are merely created by society, rather than biological in origin. Proponents have therefore tried to break down all societal distinctions between the sexes. The campaign began with language, attempting to deconstruct completely the meaning of sexual identity itself. Instead of referring to the biological sex of individuals as male or female, the term "gender" is now used to describe a purely subjective state of mind. And in addition to gays and lesbians, there can now be "transgenders," "transwomen," "transmen"," genderqueer" and "gender fluid," among many others.
Gay "marriage" and abolition of sex-specific bathrooms are merely two examples of this campaign against the understanding of sexual identity, and ultimately, the Church. This is because the Church is the only institutional obstacle to the ideological views of these radical thinkers.
If the proposed "bathroom bill" passes the Charlotte City Council, it will further undermine our societal values and put innocent people at risk. Until now, Charlotte's ordinance against sex discrimination contained three exceptions: (1) "Restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses and similar facilities which are in their nature distinctly private," (2) "YMCA, YWCA and similar types of dormitory lodging facilities," and (3) "A private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to the public." Although, at the time of writing this article, the specific language to be voted on this year has still not been disclosed, the proposal rejected last year would have eliminated those exceptions – thereby making almost all public restrooms and showers open to everyone regardless of sex.
Why do we care? For that matter, why do we have separate public bathrooms and showers for men and women? The simple answer is: modesty and safety. These reasons are obvious to anyone with common sense.
The first reason for having separate public facilities for men and women is to allow for the virtue of modesty. Modesty is a part of the virtue of temperance and refers to restraint in speech, dress and actions in order to avoid creating the temptations that are part of human nature. Modesty also protects the intrinsic dignity of the person against exploitation by those who would treat that person as an object.
The second reason for having separate public facilities for men and women is safety. Not every man who goes into a women's locker room will commit a sexual assault, but the expectation of privacy and lack of public view characteristic of bathrooms, dressing rooms and athletic facility locker rooms make them ideal places of exploitation by sexual predators.
The risk is real. A group opposed to the Houston "bathroom bill" collected reported instances of sexual violence against women by men claiming to be transgender or dressing as women to gain access to women's facilities. Although prohibiting men from showering or dressing with women would not prevent all sexual assaults, putting them together would make such assaults much easier to commit.
Aside from these risks, businesses compelled by the ordinance to open their women's restrooms and shower facilities to men would also face an increased risk of lawsuits for negligence. Negligence is the failure to take reasonable care to avoid injury. Businesses could be forced to put guards in restrooms to avoid claims that they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent crimes.
Like the push for official recognition of gay "marriage," proponents are using bathrooms as the next step in their campaign to force society to conform to their radical ideas about sexual identity. Ultimately, the failure to successfully oppose these ideas by teaching and political opposition will result in persecution of the Church itself. The Church must recognize what is happening and speak out. The rest of us can be involved and pray.
Robert D. Potter Jr. is an attorney in Charlotte.