I've been following the transgender bathroom issue pretty closely, since I have a transgender friend. North Carolina passed a law that says people must use the bathroom assigned to the gender on their birth certificate. This means a person who perceives herself to be female, looks and sounds female, and has had gender reassignment surgery so she is able to function in a relationship as a female, is breaking the law if she walks into the ladies room. Of course, wearing high heels and a dress, looking thoroughly female, and walking into the men's room - I suspect that would attract some unwanted attention.

Nowhere in any of this have I seen any reports of transgender people demanding their own bathrooms. If that's out there, it's some bizarre fringe trying to take advantage of the publicity. They are demanding the right to use the restroom (men's or
ladies) according to their sexual identity. The DOJ believes this is consistent with basic human decency and with laws regarding non-discrimination.

There is a lot of info that is being ignored about this controversy. The NC law pertains to government public facilities. Businesses are free to provide what ever accommodations that they want to. It is being promoted by the mainstream media and many on the left as being anti-gay and/or anti-LGBT. Do lesbians want access to men's restrooms? I can't see why they would, but it is still anti-gay. Do gay men want access to women's restrooms? I can't see why they would, but it is still anti-gay. Do bisexuals want access to all restrooms? Some might, but not having it sure wouldn't put them in an awkward situation, but it is still anti-gay.

There are unisex restrooms in airplanes. Any single-stall restroom can be unisex. If multi-stall restrooms should be unisex, as it appears the attacks on the NC law would suggest, why label any of them? No need for men's or women's restrooms. Problem solved! Except, most people have legitimate concerns about minimal levels of privacy expected in public restrooms, and it has absolutely nothing to do with bigotry. Should those concerns be ignored? Is there really a public greater good that this serves?