As I said, I'm certainly not in favor of perverts wearing a dress so they can spy on women in the bathroom.
So, the NC state law was a response to a city ordinance essentially saying "no holds barred?" I guess I understand now.
I still think the state law, while no doubt well intended, opens up a whole new can of worms. No pun intended.
Thank you for the conversation.
The birth certificate was likely not the way to go. However, enforcement essentially rests on self-incrimination, which puts the onus back on transsexuals to simply be discrete.
If a person who looks like a woman uses the ladies room, no one gives a hoot, but keep the junk to yourself. Likewise if a creeper walks into the ladies locker room at the gym (with or without a skirt), he can still be tossed out without the tosser being charged as a human rights violator.