I see that North Carolina's gender issues are raising some intricate legal problems. The Charlotte Observer reports (bold, underlined text is my emphasis):
The Obama Justice Department contends that sexual orientation is not a personal decision, but is based on an array of factors affecting an individual’s sense of gender and is protected by civil rights laws enacted 40 and 50 years ago. In slapping the state of North Carolina with a suit charging HB2 violates sex discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a 1972 education law and the 2013 Violence Against Women Act, Attorney General Loretta Lynch accused North Carolina officials of “state-sponsored discrimination against transgender individuals.”
. . .
But Ed Whelan, president of the conservative-leaning Ethics and Public Policy Center and head of its program on the Constitution, the Courts and the Culture, says laws like North Carolina’s “do not involve by any conceivable measure discrimination on the basis of gender identity.”
North Carolina’s law disregards gender identity by defining gender as a person’s biological sex at birth, Whelan, a former law clerk to the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, said in a phone interview.
. . .
McCrory told Fox News that Obama administration officials are “trying to define gender identity. And there is no clear identification or definition of gender identity.”
Perhaps, but [Pamela] Karlan [who teaches public interest law at Stanford University] said the medical profession has recognized that “people’s sex is made up of a complex group of factors, and for most people, the factors tend to reinforce each other.”
For most people, she said, “their chromosomal sex and their external genitalia and their sense of a social role, and the hormones that are coursing through their bodies all kind of align. For transgender people, their chromosomal sex and external genitalia at birth don’t necessarily correlate with their internal sense of gender.”
There's more at the link. It's well worth reading in full for an explanation of all the issues.
The core of the problem, to me, is how one deals with what the article calls individuals' "internal sense of gender". There are (as I've pointed out before) some people (vanishingly few, as a proportion of the general population) who suffer from genuine, physical medical problems in this area; sex chromosome abnormalities and the like. (For example, a European study showed sex chromosome abnormality rates ranging from 1 in every 1,934 persons [0.05%] to 1 in every 14,828 persons [0.007%].) For such people, I have enormous sympathy. It must be a hell of a burden to carry through life.
However, that doesn't extend to blind, unthinking acceptance of psychological or psychiatric issues with gender identity. Sure, those suffering from such issues need treatment as much as those suffering from physical abnormalities, but the appropriate treatment is psychological or psychiatric - not surgical, and not tolerance of their delusions! Just because someone thinks they're male or female doesn't mean that they are male or female. With vanishingly few exceptions (as outlined above), medically and physically, the chromosomes determine gender. Period. Someone's "internal sense of gender" does not.
That's why I don't find North Carolina's law a problem. It states baldly that bathrooms are reserved for the gender determined by one's biology - one's chromosomes. For those very, very few people with mixed-up chromosomes, I daresay this might cause issues, but I don't think they're so severe that they can't be overcome. For a start, the law, by referring to the biological gender of one's birth, implicitly acknowledges that some people's gender is biologically indeterminate at birth. I don't see the law excluding them from consideration.
On the other hand, I have very strong objections to the administration's attempts to legally define gender according to non-scientific, non-medical, touchy-feely, politically correct factors. That's simply unacceptable. Period. To my mind, it's nothing more or less than using the law as a club to ignore medical and physical reality and impose ideology instead.
One hopes sanity will prevail in the courts. If it doesn't, I daresay it will on the streets . . . because many of us will never accept or obey laws and regulations that fly in the face of nature and common sense.