
The original issue can be found at: http://www.baptistpress.com/issue-03/30/2016

DISCLAIMER: Baptist Press should be credited for any reprinted stories that originate with BP.
Suggested credit line: Reprinted from Baptist Press (www.baptistpress.com), news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

Please note that Baptist Press periodically carries stories from other sources by permission. Individuals interested in reprinting non-BP stories should contact the entity where the story originated to seek reprint permission.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

PARENTING: Gender confusion & child abuse
by Keith Collier/Southern Baptist TEXAN
Date: March 30, 2016 - Wednesday

GRAPEVINE, Texas (BP) -- Which of the following options would you define as "child abuse"?

A) a parent encourages a child to pursue desires that will cause irreparable physical, psychological and emotional damage.

B) a parent protects the child from these desires, despite the child's insistence on what's best.

The answer seems easy, but when it comes to the debate over treatment for gender-confused children, many medical professionals demonstrate competing worldviews that will prove disastrous for this generation.

The American College of Pediatricians, however, has released a startling article, "Gender Ideology Harms Children," calling on educators and legislators "to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex." The medical professionals highlight the dangers of puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones in gender-confused adolescents -- treatments that pave the way for gender reassignment surgery as an adult -- and conclude that encouraging children and parents to pursue such treatments is "child abuse."

The nationwide American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is a socially conservative medical association distinct from the larger American Academy of Pediatrics.

Key to the propositions in the pediatricians' March 21 article is the biological fact that human sexuality is binary -- male and female -- and these genetic (XY and XX) markers are normal and healthy. Children with gender confusion, such as a boy believing he's a girl or a girl wanting to be a boy, suffer from "an objective psychological problem &#91;that&#93; lies in the mind not the body," these pediatricians say.

The ACP article condemns attempts to normalize transgender treatments, citing the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which shows that as many as 98 percent of gender-confused boys and 88 percent of gender-confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty. Noting that suicide rates are 20 times higher among adults that use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, the ACP asks, "What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate ...?"

The LGBTQ community likely will do everything it can to discredit these physicians and their claims. Certainly they cannot allow the massive surge in the acceptance of the transgender movement, popularized by last year's media frenzy over Bruce Jenner's "transformation" into Caitlyn Jenner, to lose steam. After all, don't they hold the rights to the term "child abuse" in reference to parents who refuse to allow children to "be who they really are"? This claim shows just how skewed the term "child abuse" has become.

Make no mistake, this is about opposing ideologies.

The medical analysis of the American College of Pediatricians flies in the face of doctrine given to parents of children with gender dysphoria (the medical term for gender confusion) who are told they are abusive to force their kid to accept his or her biological sex.

Take, for example, the story of Mela Singleton, mother of 12-year-old "Evan" Singleton. She first noticed her daughter Evie's desire to be a boy when she was just 2 years old. As a toddler, Evie rejected anything "stereotypically girly" and threw fits when people would refer to her as "she." By age 7, Mela and her husband decided that Evie must have a boy brain with a girl body, so they acquiesced to their adolescent's wishes, changed her name to Evan and gave her a boy's haircut and clothing.

Two years later, "Evan" became the first patient in the Children Medical Center Dallas' transgender program, absurdly called Genecis (GENder Education and Care, Interdisciplinary Support), the only pediatric clinic of its type in the Southwest and among the 40 such clinics nationwide.

"It's my job as a parent to help him be his authentic self," Mela says, adding that "it's not about me; it's about raising a child to be the best him that he can be." Evan, whether conditioned by his parents or the Genecis program, simply wants transgender to be normalized, stating "it's not that big of a deal."

But what if "raising a child to be the best him that he can be" actually means raising him as a her, which is her God-given biological sex. That is, after all, what the data presented by American College of Pediatricians suggests.

Sadly, an over-idealized concept of individual freedom runs rampant in our culture, asking, "Who are you to refuse to let someone choose who they want to be?" My answer to that question is simply, "I'm the dad."

As parents, we face difficult choices over what is best for our children all the time, and these decisions often come at the protest of our children, who think they know best.

What if my 5-year-old daughter, who has her dad's sweet tooth, says she thinks M&M's are the healthiest food for her and throws a fit when I place anything else in front of her? What if I acquiesce to her wishes and feed her only M&M's because "that's just who she is"? Or what if after she complained of a headache, I handed her a bottle of aspirin and encouraged her to eat as many as she wanted to make her feel better.

I'm pretty sure in both of these cases that Child Protective Services would be knocking at my door.

Let me be clear, gender dysphoria is a serious psychological disorder in children, and I would never encourage parents to ignore it or say "he'll get over it." Parents should patiently and prayerfully seek help but also be aware that recommendations they get from some doctors will go against God's design for human sexuality.

At the same time, just because your daughter likes to skateboard or doesn't like the color pink doesn't mean she's a boy trapped in a girl's body. And just because your son is more effeminate, it does not mean you should pursue medical treatments that could jeopardize his health and his life.

Undoubtedly, this debate will rage on, but I appreciate physicians like those with the American College of Pediatricians who are willing to stand against the trends in psychology and medicine in order to more clearly identify the true definition of "child abuse."


--------------------------------------------------------------------

My parents didn't let me choose my gender
by Maggie Sandusky
Date: March 30, 2016 - Wednesday

FORT WORTH, Texas (BP) -- There is a growing trend today that we see repeated in news headlines: Parents choosing to raise their child genderless or as the opposite gender due to the child's preference. Simply put, if a little girl says she wishes she were a boy or a little boy prefers to play with dolls, the parents seek to grant their wish.

If I had been raised in a different time, by different parents, I fear I could have been one of them.

I had two older brothers who, from my 4-10-year-old tomboy perspective, got to do a lot of pretty great things that I didn't. They didn't have to wear a shirt when they were hot, they didn't have to wear complicated dress clothes and they were in Boy Scouts. Everything about Boy Scouts seemed awesome to me -- camping, learning about animals, racing little wooden cars. I had no desire to be a Girl Scout. Large groups of girls intimidated me, and much of what Girl Scouts seemed to do was sell cookies, have sleepovers and wear mud brown. I liked to run with the boys. I remember on multiple occasions as a little girl questioning why God had to make me a girl.

Now in our culture, one option for my dilemma would be for my parents to grant my desire and either raise me as a boy or genderless so I would have time to figure out "who I am" without the pressure of nurturing.

Amid this trend, we need to first and foremost look to Scripture when engaging culture, when advising friends how to handle this or when dealing with our own children's views about their gender.

First, we must remember that God created gender (Genesis 1:27) and He created our gender to be a blessing (1 Corinthians 1:11-12). Ephesians 5:22-33 shows how God uses gender to teach us about Himself and to paint a picture of His love for the world. While there may be some aspects of being a woman that our carnal nature isn't thrilled about, such as submission, we should also acknowledge that manhood brings its own set of challenges (Ephesians 5:25, 1 Peter 3:7). The grass isn't greener on either side.

Second, we should understand that children need nurturing to understand their world and grow up to honor God (Proverbs 22:6). Any parent can think of examples of irrational requests or desires their child has expressed. When my husband was little, he would tell people he wanted to be a fire truck when he grew up. As silly as it seems, it is about as reasonable for his parents to start keeping him in the garage and paint him red as it would have been for my parents to raise me as a boy. Mothers and women in the church should help girls learn to be women of God. Men in the church and fathers, likewise, need to model and teach manhood to boys (Titus 2).

Third, we should acknowledge the wide spectrum of femininity and masculinity and not seek to force stereotypical preferences on our children. Dorcus was crafty (Acts 9:39) while Rachel was a shepherdess. David was a fierce warrior (1 Samuel 18:7) but he also liked poetry (Psalm 23). Ultimately, I'm glad my mom made me wear a shirt, taught me to dress like a lady, and didn't fight to let me be a Boy Scout. I'm also glad my dad took time to show me outdoor skills and that my mom gave in to my begging to join the pole vault team, though she was sure I'd break my neck. My parents nurtured my femininity without forcing me into stereotypes.

I fear that many children raised counter to their God-given gender will, with age, question what their parents were thinking. Just like a parent who allows their child to play with matches, the excuse that it's what they wanted, or it wasn't culturally acceptable to tell them "no," won't cut it. As believers, we need to be loving enough to tell our children and our culture "no" when we see them destroying themselves.

Ultimately, a few years of perceived injustice in my life gave way to being very glad that I am not a boy and enjoying my God-given gender. I love Pinterest and I'm always up for a pedicure, but I still love being outdoors and doing physically challenging activities. I couldn't claim to be a girly-girl, but I've come to realize and to love that it is simply not the kind of girl that God made me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed S.C. refugee registry draws criticism
by Tom Strode
Date: March 30, 2016 - Wednesday

WASHINGTON (BP) -- Evangelical advocates for religious liberty and refugee resettlement are dismayed by proposed legislation in South Carolina that could penalize churches that aid exiles from other countries.

The South Carolina Senate passed legislation March 23 to require a sponsoring organization to register a refugee with the state's Department of Social Services within 30 days after he or she enters the state. In addition, the sponsor would be "strictly liable" in civil court if the refugee commits an act of terrorism or another violent crime.

Senators approved the proposal in a 39-6 vote, with six of the chamber's 18 Democrats in opposition. The House of Representatives is expected to consider the measure when it returns April 12 from its Easter recess.

While the bill would affect all refugee sponsors, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and others expressed special concern for its potential impact on churches and religious adherents.

ERLC President Russell Moore called the bill "deeply misguided," particularly in its threat of civil liability for those who serve refugees.

"The legislators are right that the government has a mandate to keep citizens safe," Moore told Baptist Press in written comments. "The government does not have a mandate, though, to intimidate churches and religious citizens from freely exercising their religion" by ministering to people regardless of their country of origin. 

"Whatever one thinks about refugee policy," Moore said, "this bill is a step backward on religious freedom."

Jenny Yang, World Relief's vice president of advocacy and policy, expressed a similar sentiment. The legislation "creates a climate of fear" for people who help refugees, she said. World Relief is the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals.

"The language is so broad it could mean someone who teaches a refugee English or picks up a refugee for &#91;a&#93; church service acts as a 'refugee sponsor' who is then liable for any harmful actions that refugee commits later on," Yang told BP in a March 29 email interview. "It's punishing the Good Samaritan for acting out of good faith to help a neighbor in need for a harmful action that neighbor commits that is completely outside their control."

Church volunteers might be "driven to not help at all for fear of being held liable for such actions," Yang said.

Refugees already receive stringent vetting in the federal Refugee Resettlement Program, Yang said at a Capitol Hill discussion on refugees sponsored by the ERLC in December, noting that before placing a refugee with an agency, the U.S. government follows a 12-step process and takes 18 months to two years.

"Compassion does not have to conflict with national security." Yang told BP by email. "The U.S. refugee resettlement program has embodied both values and continues to be a valuable humanitarian tool that should be supported."

Under the legislation, the sponsor of a person in the federal Refugee Resettlement Program will be liable to an injured party if the refugee "acted in a reckless, willful, or grossly negligent manner, committed an act of terrorism ... or committed &#91;a violent crime&#93; that resulted in physical harm or injury to a person or damage to or theft of real or personal property."

After a refugee is enrolled by a sponsor, the Department of Social Services must provide the information to the state's Law Enforcement Division, which is required to confirm the refugee does not "pose a public safety risk."

While some of the bill's Senate sponsors are members of Southern Baptist churches, at least two-thirds of the South Carolina churches that partner with World Relief are Southern Baptist congregations, Jason Lee, state director of the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, told BP in a phone interview.

Lee became director of World Relief's South Carolina office in Spartanburg a year ago after nearly six years as pastor of Oak Grove Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist congregation in the same city. He previously served as a missionary with the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board.

The Senate-endorsed legislation is designed to severely limit refugee resettlement in South Carolina, one Senate sponsor said of the bill's stated goal to protect the state's citizens.

"We have de-incentivized the sponsoring of refugees in South Carolina," said Sen. Kevin Bryant, a Republican representing Anderson. "We're going to have very few refugees coming to South Carolina.

"I think we need to remember the refugees are not United States citizens," Bryant said in an online video posted by The Charleston Post and Courier. "With the danger today of a terrorist infiltrating the refugee program, we have no other option than to enroll this information" in a registry.

World Relief, which has received approval to resettle 120 refugees in South Carolina this year, is concerned about the bill, Lee said. Lutheran Services, the only other resettlement agency in the state, has approval to resettle 220 refugees in 2016. 

All of the refugee-sponsoring organizations that have worked with World Relief in South Carolina are either churches or Christian groups. Last year, 84 percent of the refugees who were settled in South Carolina through World Relief identified as Christians.

So far, however, no South Carolina churches partnering with World Relief or waiting to help refugees have expressed concern about continuing in the resettlement efforts, Lee said. "There's been more dismay that &#91;the state is&#93; trying to create another level of government."

World Relief hopes the House "will look to guard the religious liberty of our churches and try to help continue South Carolina being a welcoming place," he said.

The legislation "has been debated as a way of keeping South Carolinians safe, but it's real effect would be to make refugees unwelcome," Yang said. "There is no due cause to believe that refugees are more criminal than any other individual. 

"Putting refugee info in a database to be potentially tracked, for no other reason than one's having arrived legally through the U.S. refugee program, stigmatizes refugees and runs counter to our most basic humanitarian commitments and priorities to treat war victims, who want nothing more than to start a new life in safe and welcoming communities, as criminals," she said.

The South Carolina Senate action came barely a week after the ERLC promoted a March 15 prayer for refugees campaign. The ERLC joined with IMB, World Relief and other organizations in urging prayer for the more than 13.5 million Syrians who need humanitarian assistance as a result of the civil war in the Middle Eastern country. The refugee crisis, described as the worst since World War II, has resulted in more than 4.8 million Syrians being registered as refugees by the United Nations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

FIRST-PERSON: Transgender plea or demand?
by Bob Stith
Date: March 30, 2016 - Wednesday

SOUTHLAKE, Texas (BP) -- A major article on the transgender controversy over restroom access was posted during the Easter weekend by my local newspaper, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. As is typical of most media, it was couched entirely as an LGBT rights issue.

No scientist or conservative cultural commentator was quoted on whether to allow restroom access for whichever sex an individual may select.

This makes it very difficult for the average citizen to make a reasoned decision, as was demonstrated in the media frenzy concerning Bruce Jenner. Praise was heaped on him from virtually every form of media.

Serious journalism, however, would have included interviews with men like Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current distinguished service professor of psychiatry. Dr. McHugh was a pioneer in transgender surgeries but stopped doing them and urged others to stop. The reason? Dr. McHugh and others actually had studied the surgery's long-term effects.

McHugh concluded this was an attempt to treat a psychological problem with a surgical solution -- and it wasn't working. It still isn't.

McHugh is one of three signatories on an American College of Pediatricians article titled "Gender Ideology Harms Children." The March 21 article, to be expanded this summer, urges educators and legislators to grasp that it is child abuse to encourage children "to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex" (for related Baptist Press story today, click here).

As early as 2001, John Leo, a former contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report, said this should be a matter of medicine and not politics. He reported on people who were asking to have one or more healthy limbs cut off because they said they didn't feel whole or happy with both arms and both legs attached -- a psychiatric condition known as apotemnophilia. A surgeon in Scotland drew heavy publicity for amputating the healthy legs of two patients. His hospital stopped him before he could amputate the leg of a third patient, a New Yorker.

I cannot embrace the idea that one person's psychological disturbance should override the potential danger to children who are forced to share a bathroom and, more troubling, a dressing room with someone of the opposite gender. In what world does it seem reasonable to have a pre-pubescent girl exposed to a naked adult male? Does no one care about the potential danger to her psyche? 

The Star-Telegram article derisively dismissed the idea that it would lead to transgender strugglers becoming sexual predators in restrooms. But this misses the point. The concern isn't necessarily that the transgender struggler will be a predator as the very real possibility that exhibitionists and others will use these laws as a cover. 

In the Dallas-Fort Worth area we frequently see news reports of predators in public areas seeking to lure children close enough to engage in exhibitionism. The community rightly rises up and makes every effort to find and prosecute these individuals. But how do we prosecute them if they claim gender confusion?

And when transgender rights advocates refuse the privacy of separate restrooms or dressing rooms, it becomes more than a plea for accommodation -- but a demand.

As Christians we should do all we can to demonstrate compassion and understanding to those who are dealing with gender confusion. But we should not sacrifice our children on the altar of political correctness. This is especially true when 1) there is no agreed-upon cause or cure in secular medicine for those struggling with this issue and 2) studies show that surgical or medical intervention does not result in significant psychological improvement.

A truly compassionate society would seek to alleviate the detrimental effects of this confusion without either engaging in radical and permanent surgical mutilation or potentially causing confusion and distress to our children. 

Apart from the moral considerations, a reasonable people should be open to reasonable options that show concern for all those who are affected and not only a very small minority who are unwilling to compromise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious liberty focus of new study
by Bob Smietana
Date: March 30, 2016 - Wednesday

NASHVILLE (BP) -- A growing number of Americans believe religious liberty is on the decline and that the nation's Christians face growing intolerance, according to a survey by LifeWay Research.

Those surveyed also noted American Christians complain too much.

Those are among the findings of a new study of views about religious liberty from LifeWay Research. Researchers surveyed 1,000 Americans in September 2013 and September 2015 and then compared the results.  

Two-thirds (63 percent) say Christians face increasing intolerance, up from half (50 percent) in 2013.

A similar number (60 percent) say religious liberty is on the decline, up from just over half (54 percent) in 2013.

Forty-three percent say American Christians complain too much about how they are treated, up from 34 percent in 2013.

"More Americans worry the U.S. has a hostile environment for religious liberty," said Ed Stetzer, executive director of LifeWay Research. "As this perception grows, some approve of it while others speak up against it."

Religious liberty has become an increasingly contentious issue in American culture -- with disputes over birth control, same-sex wedding cakes, headscarves at work, and prisoners' beards.

The more recent LifeWay Research survey found faith plays a key role in how Americans view the state of religious liberty.

Two-thirds of Christians (64 percent) and those of other faiths (65 percent) say religious liberty is on the decline. Self-identified evangelicals (71 percent) and those who attend worship at least once a week (70 percent) are most likely to agree. 

Catholics (56 percent) and non-evangelicals (55 percent) are more skeptical. So are Nones (46 percent).

"Christians are particularly sensitive to what they see as intolerance towards their faith," Stetzer said. "But they share a common concern with people of other faiths -- that religious liberty in general is declining. And this perception is growing rapidly."

Age also played a role in how Americans view the state of religious liberty.

Less than half (42 percent) of those 18 to 24 say religious liberty is on the decline. By contrast, 6 in 10 (62 percent) of those over 25 see a decline.

LifeWay Research also found non-Christians are less convinced that Christians face intolerance. Less than half of those from other faiths (43 percent) and Nones (48 percent) agree when asked if intolerance toward Christians has increased.

By contrast, most Christians (70 percent), self-identified evangelicals (82 percent) and Protestants (74 percent) see more intolerance. So do three-fourths (76 percent) of those who attend services once a week or more.

Researchers found some signs that Americans are tired of arguments over religious liberty. A sizable number of Americans believe Christians' complaints about how they are treated are excessive.

Among them:

-- 38 percent of Christians
-- 39 percent of Americans of other faiths
-- 59 percent of Nones
-- 53 percent of those who rarely or never attend worship

American Christians face a challenge, as the nation becomes more secular, Stetzer said. Calls for religious liberty may fall on increasingly deaf ears in the future.

"Most people now believe Christians are facing intolerance, however, a surprisingly large minority perceives Christians to be complainers," Stetzer said. "Both of those facts will matter as Christians profess and contend for their beliefs without sounding false alarms around faux controversies. It won't be easy to strike that balance."

Methodology: The phone survey of Americans was conducted Sept. 14-28, 2015. The calling utilized random digit dialing. Fifty percent of completes were among landlines and 50 percent among cell phones. Maximum quotas and slight weights were used for gender, region, age, ethnicity and education to more accurately reflect the population. The completed sample is 1,000 surveys. The sample provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed plus or minus 3.6 percent. Margins of error are higher in subgroups. Comparisons are also made to a LifeWay Research telephone survey conducted Sept. 6-10, 2013.

LifeWay Research is a Nashville-based, evangelical research firm that specializes in surveys about faith in culture and matters that affect the church.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

N.C. bathroom restrictions challenged by activists
by David Roach
Date: March 30, 2016 - Wednesday

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (BP) -- Despite a federal court challenge, social conservatives in North Carolina are defending a state law upholding religious liberty and requiring individuals in state government buildings to use restrooms based on the gender indicated on their birth certificates.

"North Carolinians are pretty fed up with their voices being clamped down and tossed out" regarding the defense of traditional marriage and religious liberty, said Mark Harris, a Charlotte pastor running for U.S. Congress as a Republican. "... The citizens of North Carolina are determined their voices are going to be heard."

A lawsuit filed in federal court March 28 by pro-transgender activists alleges North Carolina's Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972. According to the lawsuit, the bill's "requirement that transgender people be shunted into single-sex spaces that do not match their gender identity invades their privacy and exposes this vulnerable population to harassment and potential violence by others."

Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, has defended the law, including in a document titled "Myths vs. Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and other media outlets aren't saying about common-sense privacy law."

Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, told Baptist Press McCrory's classification of the mainstream media is an accurate reflection of a "mammoth misinformation campaign" afoot among the cultural left.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, the governor's Democratic opponent in his bid for re-election this year, has refused to defend the measure in court, calling it a "national embarrassment" that "puts discrimination into the law," the Associated Press reported.

The Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act was passed March 23 during a special session of the state legislature convened in response to a Charlotte city ordinance that would have taken effect April 1 barring discrimination in public accommodations based on "gender identity, gender expression" and "sexual orientation." The ordinance deleted a section of the city code stipulating sex discrimination laws did not apply to "restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses and similar facilities which are in their nature distinctly private."

State lawmakers overturned the ordinance by establishing a state nondiscrimination law that preempts all local government laws. The new state law prohibits discrimination in employment and public accommodation of individuals based on, among other factors, their "biological sex," identified as "the physical condition of being male or female, which is defined on a person's birth certificate."

The law does not include an explicit ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

McCrory's "Myths vs. Facts" document argues the law permits private businesses to allow anyone to use any restroom. It also permits transgender persons to use the restroom of their choice in state facilities as long as they have changed the sex indicated on their birth certificates -- a change allowed in North Carolina only for those who have undergone gender reassignment surgery.

Republican state Rep. Paul Stam, speaker pro tempore of the House of Representatives, told BP the lawsuit filed against the bill "reads like a novel."

"If the courts follow the law, the lawsuit will be thrown out," said Stam, a former member of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee and a former trustee at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "... This is a wild lawsuit."

Among the suit's claims:

-- One plaintiff's "sex assigned at birth was female, as his birth certificate reflects, but that designation does not accurately reflect his gender identity, which is male."

-- "Medical treatment such as the surgery required to update a person's North Carolina birth certificate does not alter a person's gender ... but rather merely brings a person's body into alignment with the gender they have always been."

Harris, pastor of First Baptist Church in Charlotte, told BP the new state legislation is necessary to preserve the rule of law, safeguard religious liberty and protect public safety.

"We just did not need the risk of men in women's restrooms," Harris said. The Charlotte ordinance "said that transgender individuals simply could choose to go to whatever restroom they felt most comfortable with. It was based on what they felt. It didn't even say they had to be presenting as a woman."

Harris continued, "No one ever said that a transgender individual was more likely to be a predator on innocent children or women. However, the way this ordinance was written ... it certainly left the door wide open for people with less than positive motives to use this to be in a women's restroom."

Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, told BP that restricting restroom use based on biological sex "is not just a safety issue, it's also a modesty issue."

Supporters of open access to restrooms should "talk to more women about this," said Land, former president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "There are some innate gender differences, and one of them is modesty ... My wife was just horrified &#91;before the state legislature acted&#93; at the prospect this &#91;Charlotte&#93; law was going to go into effect."

Land added that religious liberty protection for wedding service providers who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds is an underreported aspect of the new state law.

"Religious freedom is a right that is not granted by the Constitution," Land said, referencing its divine origin. "It is recognized. It is guaranteed by the Constitution. The idea of discrimination goes both ways. These laws are meant to protect citizens' religious freedom. It's to protect the faithful and their beliefs."

State Rep. Jonathan Jordan, a co-sponsor of the measure, told BP pro-transgender activists in North Carolina should present their case directly to state and federal legislators rather than acting via local ordinances -- which he classified as violations of the state's constitutional principle that governing power is vested in the legislature unless the legislature delegates specific powers to local governments.

Adding to the list of groups legally protected against discrimination "is an argument you need to take to either Congress or to the state ... instead of trying to overreach and kind of go behind with a local municipality, which didn't have the authority to do that," said Jordan, a Republican and a Southern Baptist.

He added, "I would not want to add more federally protected classes. I'm not sure where that's going to stop."



