Talk:Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act

Objection to neutrality
I knew this would come up. This is an issue where opponents are vocal in their opposition, but proponents, however many there may be, are mostly silent. Believe me, I've been trying to maintain neutrality. I haven't been able to find a single company in support of HB 2 publicly. That's not to say they're not out there, only that they lack notoriety, aren't published in the media, or both.

If anyone has sources that should be included, whether they are critical of HB 2 or otherwise, please add them yourself or provide them to me and I will add them. Dmarquard (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I added reference to the statement released by Keep NC Safe Coalition that included 41 individual names. I'm not aware of any major/national company that has announced their support. Mamburn (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the statement on disputed neutrality. No one has justified this. If they do, I'll happily work with them to fix it. Dmarquard (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone got thoughts on putting the lead and explaining what the bill does in normal language? Someone just reverting me for simplifying the legalese, and I'm eager to hear what others make of it.Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Source for nonpartisan claim
The roll-call vote for the state House of Reps is here: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2015E2&sChamber=H&RCS=9

It shows that 10 of the 35 Democrats who voted on the bill voted in favor of it.
 * I count 11 Democrats voting in favor of it:
 * Brisson
 * C. Graham
 * Floyd
 * G. Graham
 * Goodman
 * Hunter
 * L. Bell
 * Pierce
 * Salmon
 * W. Richardson
 * Wray
 * The breakdown by party isn't currently shown anywhere in the article as far as I can see.
 * 107.13.149.189 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

ref

 * http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf if anyone is interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting the key issues about the bill in plain language in the lead.
These sentences, or something close to them, keep getting deleted:

''A contentious element of the bill is the part that eliminates anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and legislates that individuals only use bathrooms that correspond to their biological gender. This has been criticized because it prevents transgender people from using the bathroom of their new gender. '' If anyone has a proposal for how to improve this, please explain. As far as I can see, this is a straightforward summary of what is contentious about the bill, and it uses plain language to express the key elements, and contentious elements, of it. User:AHC300 keeps deleting it and has not explained why. The lead is supposed to sum up the most important parts of the topic and outline the controversies without engaging in them. Thanks. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Didn't realize the edits in the lead were being reverted, but in my view, a well-cited interpretation of the overall bill should be included, without jargon. Dmarquard (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the phrasing is simply not accurate. You write "bathrooms" in the first sentence without anywhere indicating that this applies directly only to bathrooms in government facilities. Contrary to what a lot of critics seem to believe, HB2 dictates nothing on that front for private entities, which are still entirely free to set their own policies, on that particular front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfinator` (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that, according to the state, it does not prohibit those who've undergone sex reassignment surgery from using the bathroom corresponding to their reassigned sex rather than their biological sex, since such people can change the sex listed on their birth certificates. Saying that "[I]t prevents transgender people from using the bathroom of their new gender," is at best a partial truth, and is highly deceptive, since most people still think of transsexuals as those who've had the surgery, not those who have not.  (I'm assuming here that the NC's official position is accurate here.  I've heard many news reports stating that it applies to anyone born a different sex than their currently claimed one, but none specifying that the NC position is contrary to the law, i.e., that post-op transsexuals cannot change the sex on their birth certificates.  I'm inclined to believe that this is just a matter of lazy reporting - assuming birth certificate sex is sex at birth - rather than NC lying about the law, since the latter would presumably be newsworthy and refutable.) Calbaer (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I found a CNN article at http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/03/us/north-carolina-gender-bathrooms-law-opposing-views/ that discusses that issue. It confirms that the NC law allows birth certificate changes, but notes that other states might not be so accommodating, so that people born with a different sex in a different state might still have difficulties.  However, this page is still inaccurate, as is the statement that the bill uses only "biological sex," which links to a page which implies that this means "genetic sex," which is not the determination NC uses.  A truly accurate statement might be:
 * A contentious element of the bill is the part that removes anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and legislates that individuals only use government restrooms that correspond to the sex on their birth certificates. This has been criticized because it prevents transgender people who have not or cannot alter their birth certificate sex from using the restroom of their self-identified gender. In North Carolina, only those having undergone sex reassignment surgery can change the sex on their birth certificates, and outside jurisdictions have different rules, some more restrictive.
 * Calbaer (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Impact of HB2
With the impact of HB2 just starting to come to fruition, I've added an "Impact" section to the article. I encourage everyone reading this to expand upon it. Dmarquard (talk)

Inventory of Economic Impact
Rather than continuing to quote updated estimates of economic impact, I think it might be more useful to start an inventory. I've seen several summary amounts but haven't yet seen anyone actually post a breakdown of their numbers.

So far, some of what we know:

WDYT? Mamburn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Ordinance 7056
There should be a separate article, or at least a substantial section within this article, on Charlotte Ordinance 7056. There is a great deal of misinformation about HB 2, and explaining 7056 would go a long way to clarifying the reason that the portion of HB 2 (that part that most people approve of; see article) was adopted. 174.25.31.20 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I created a section specifically for the ordinance. I think the paragraph on the ordinance is succinct and accurate. I didn't pick out any misinformation. Dmarquard (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I found this elsewhere:  "...the very person that sponsored the original Charlotte ordinance that necessitated HB2 was found to be a convicted homosexual molester. Google: Chad Sevearance. Yet ANOTHER LGBT pervert leader caught sodomizing teen aged boys.  Why doesn't this article make mention of this?"  174.25.6.212 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Order and overlap of certain sections
Referring to the sections that exist in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Facilities_Privacy_%26_Security_Act&oldid=719121889 the article at present]: -sche (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 'United Kingdom' is the only subsection of the 'International' section, and that section has no content outside that subsection, suggesting that the subsection header is unneeded.
 * The 'commercial' section overlaps somewhat with the 'Economic impact' section, and the 'international' section overlaps somewhat with (i.e. contains some of the same content as) the 'Tourism' section. Should this overlap be addressed in some way?
 * Would it make sense to sort the 'Political' figures section near the other 'Public figures'? Would it make sense to sort the 'International [governments]' section near the sections on local and federal government reactions?
 * Should 'Protests' be sorted near or as subsections of 'Criticism'? (If there have been any demonstrations of support, those could likewise be sorted near or as subsections of 'Support'.)
 * 'Legal challenges' and perhaps 'Efforts to repeal or modify' should be sorted closer to the top IMO, near 'Background and passage', so as to put all of the official, legally impactful actions in one place.
 * The information that Attorney General Cooper will not defend the law, currently listed as mere criticism, seems like it belongs in the 'Legal challenges' or governmental response sections.
 * I agree. Did you make these changes? Looks better organized now. Dmarquard (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've made most of these changes, except linking the 'tourism' and 'international criticism' sections (the latter of which contains the UK's warning to potential tourists). -sche (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Calls to suicide hotline increase after HB2
I don't know if this merits mention in the article or not, but several media, including [//www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article72879582.html The News & Observer] and [//wnct.com/2016/04/26/transgender-suicide-hotline-reports-call-increase-after-hb2/ WNCT], have noted that calls to a hotline for transgender people who are considering suicide increased after HB2 passed (they also note the statistic that 41% of trans people attempt suicide). -sche (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I added this to the lead. Dmarquard (talk)

Target Corporation
The long paragraph beginning "In response to Target's new policy..." details an attempted non-governmental, nationwide boycott of the Target corporation, which is off-topic in an article about a law passed by the government of North Carolina, AFAICT. I propose that it be moved to Target Corporation, where it is relevant (and where much of it is already present). -sche (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have moved the paragraph to the Target article, where it is relevant. -sche (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It was acceptable in the 2016s
While this seems to have been a big bugbear for some people in 2016 it needs radical pruning now, I think. The article is ludicrous long and full of trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.189.105 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)