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.”
