HB2 - Simple Solutions

The battle for bathrooms rages on. It has drawn national attention and cost a sitting Governor his re-election. And even as North Carolina is ranked in the top five states economically the media bewails the “millions of dollars” HB2 has cost the state economy – from basketball tournaments to rock concerts. But let's have a more serious look.

The Charlotte ordinance which prompted HB2 required businesses to allow transgender individuals access to facilities based on the gender they “identify” with. The law applied to public and private facilities, including schools. We are not only talking about individual toilet rooms or changing rooms at Target with latching doors. The rule applied to open “gang” showers and locker rooms.

In modern western culture we have developed the idea of personal modesty and privacy. That is the reason large public bathrooms have stalls and doors. If a man or woman exposes themselves to a member of the opposite sex it is considered a crime. There are cultures where such puritan ethics are unheard of and public bathing is not an issue, but not in western culture. There are also cultures where rape is not considered taboo.

That is the problem with Charlotte's ordinance and the reaction of the State in HB2. Supporters of HB2 have failed to present that basic, and simple, argument. They have allowed outside forces and liberal politicians to frame the case as “homophobia” and bigotry against a growing LGBTQ community. But the truth is more complicated. The Charlotte ordinance was bigoted against those who desire a degree of privacy and modesty.

If you asked the question “Are you okay with having a male in the shower with your daughter?” the answer would be almost unanimously NO. The person's “gender identity” is not really relevant when everyone is naked. What is relevant is young men and women being presented with the genitalia of the opposite sex in places like locker rooms and gang showers where they are required to disrobe. What is at issue is privacy and modesty.

This is an easy problem to fix that doesn't require either side to give up their rights. We do not need to force members of one biological sex to be in close proximity with the opposite biological sex while both are exposed. Remember, we put stalls with doors in bathrooms so we don't even have to expose ourselves to members of our own sex while we take care of business.

I remember when I was a kid many public restrooms had long trough urinals where men would crowd in, shoulder to shoulder. They were deemed unsanitary, and men wanted a little more privacy, so today we have individual urinals with partitions between them. Many facilities have done the same with showers, though many schools still have large, open, gang showers. But we have never had unisex gang bathrooms or public bath houses where men and women share facilities.

The simple fix is more privacy, not less. Just like the case where the state code requires division between urinals, a move to individual facilities would solve the problem without injuring the sensibilities or rights of either side. It is a design problem, not a political one. Trans people do not want to use the facilities of the gender they do not identify with and many non-trans people do not want to expose themselves with those of a different biological sex. Individual facilities do not require gender distinction.

This is where my whole rant relates to the plumbing industry, which is the point of this blog. We can design facilities that are more private and thereby more inclusive without stepping on anyone's toes. The cost may be slightly more, but not unreasonable if facilities are properly designed. I'm sure there was some complaint from business when trough urinals were phased out. But the payback in customer satisfaction, and saving expensive remodeling later with the whim of politics, is worth a little redesign.

It is up to us as plumbing professionals and designers to solve this issue. We should lead the way and make the battle over bathroom bills a non-issue. Some simple measures could be having partitions extend floor to ceiling with lockable doors, partitions in locker rooms, and individual shower rooms with adjoining changing areas. All of these exist in some facilities, it's just a matter of standards.

If our designs look at the places people demand privacy, and provide that privacy, we can make facilities that are more open and more private at the same time. A large unisex facility could have individual toilets and showers with individual changing rooms yet a large common area of lavatories and lockers. No one's privacy would be intruded, but there would be more inclusion and possibly a savings in construction and maintenance costs.

When we look to solve problems, not posture on ideology, we can find efficient, progressive answers. The “Bathroom Bill” debate is more about posturing than solving problems. As the nations designers and builders we can fix this. As America's plumbers, this is our arena – our area of expertise. Leave bathrooms to the State Board and to plumbers, not legislators and pundits. North Carolina can lead the way. Plumbers can once again “protect the health of the nation.”