WCNC Charlotte

By Joshua Peters

At first glance, Senate Bill (SB) 516 may appear to be a well-intentioned attempt to ensure women’s safety in sensitive public spaces. But a closer examination reveals a proposal that overreaches its stated aim, lacks enforceable clarity, and risks transforming legitimate safety concerns into a blunt instrument for regulating identity and reinforcing a preferred view of normative behavior.

The definitions provided adopt a narrow, anatomy-based understanding of biological sex, which some may view as appropriate for distinguishing male and female in strictly biological or medical contexts. This approach emphasizes reproductive structures and functions, aligning with traditional definitions rooted in physical biology. However, issues arise when this narrow framework is extended to broader social and legal categories such as "woman," "man," "mother," and "father." These roles encompass more than anatomy—they carry legal, psychological, and cultural dimensions that the current definitions overlook. For instance, defining “mother” solely as a parent of the female sex fails to account for transgender women who are legal and social mothers, while similar problems arise in defining “woman” or “man” only through reproductive anatomy. Such conflation of biological sex with complex social identities introduces inconsistencies.

The bill, by grounding gendered roles and societal classifications entirely in anatomy, raises questions about its broader intent and practical application. While biological definitions may have their place in medicine or certain data collection contexts, applying them to areas like public accommodations or parental roles disregards the lived realities of individuals whose identities are affirmed socially and legally. For example, social recognition of gender often happens through shared experiences and peer dynamics, not anatomy. This is evident in everyday rituals—such as groups of women using the restroom together—not driven by biology, but by social bonding and cultural expression of identity.

By using a rigid biological standard to dictate access to gendered spaces or roles, the bill overlooks the nuanced, lived experiences of many individuals. These spaces are shaped not only by physical function but by social expectations, emotional safety, and mutual recognition. Codifying identity strictly through anatomy fails to accommodate those who have transitioned and are living in accordance with their affirmed gender, despite being legally and socially recognized as such. In doing so, the bill risks creating a culture-based normative argument for exclusion than clarity, especially in situations where practical, respectful accommodations already exist.

Furthermore, if scientific objectivity is to serve as the foundation for legislative standards, we must ask: where does that logic end? If the state can impose a biologically reductive standard on matters of gender identity, could it not, by the same reasoning, seek to define normative behavior for faith communities under the guise of scientific consistency? Such a move would surely be seen by the legislature as an unacceptable infringement on religious freedom—yet that same principle of autonomy should extend to matters of gender and identity. Respect for pluralism, whether in belief or in identity, must be consistently upheld when reasonable accommodation exists.

This gives rise to perhaps the most concerning aspect of the legislation: the absence of limiting principles or clear mechanisms for enforcement. The bill outlines what institutions must do, but not how they are to do it without resorting to profiling, surveillance, or violations of privacy. Who determines compliance, and who bears responsibility when someone is misidentified or unjustly excluded from services?

Section 143-770 is particularly troubling. It creates a private right of action against facilities, allowing lawsuits not on the basis of demonstrable harm or credible threat, but on the mere presence of someone perceived to be of the wrong biological sex. This opens the door to litigation rooted in discomfort or bias rather than actual misconduct, placing institutions in a precarious position—tasked with enforcing ambiguous rules they are neither equipped nor authorized to implement fairly.

No doubt, concerns about privacy and safety—particularly in spaces like domestic violence shelters, correctional facilities, and school locker rooms—are valid and deserve thoughtful policy responses. But such responses must be targeted, nuanced, and grounded in practical realities. The binary framing of SB 516—that one must choose between protecting women and reasonable accommodations for trans identities—is a false dichotomy. We can thread this needle by being accommodating when appropriate and protective of women’s spaces at the same time.

In its current form, SB 516 does not chart a principled or practical path forward. Instead, it offers an ideologically driven framework that is not only difficult to enforce but also risks deepening division rather than addressing real concerns. Public policy should strive to reflect the complexity of the human condition, not reduce it to categories that deny social experiences that are within the domain of reasonable accommodations.