Police remove woman from woman's bathroom.

[Kilgore Trout]

To be fair, she shouldn't have been washing her testicles in the sink.

 

[George-ananda]

You did see the part where the asked her for I.D. right? Now think about that. If she had caused a disturbance or done anything that warranted her removal, what difference would her I.D. possibly make?

My driver's license and passport both show my Sex as 'Male' and I am thus not permitted to use a Female public restroom. We needn't vilify security personnel who would get in trouble for not investigating a complaint. The I.D. is a legal document.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm far less concerned about who's using what bathroom, as I am about getting some cleaning people in them more often.

 

[Underhill]

Each cop actually costs far more than they're paid, typically at least twice as much in payroll, taxes, benefits, & sundries.
As I see it, we'd be better off with fewer better qualified cops with better supervision.
As things stand, we've too many cops who are part of the criminal problem, ie, we pay them to commit crimes.

I agree. But it's hard to quantify quality in an election speech. On the other hand it sounds very good to say you've doubled the number of police on the streets (which NY, for example, has done 3 times since 9-11).

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. But it's hard to quantify quality in an election speech. On the other hand it sounds very good to say you've doubled the number of police on the streets (which NY, for example, has done 3 times since 9-11).

People do love the illusion of security.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We agree that this is a mountain out of a molehill. One bathroom misadventure out of millions and millions is nothing to get very worked up over. Now, who are you venting at? Is it people that make complaints too trivially? In that case I agree again. My point in jumping into this thread was to defend the security guards or police that are being vilified for just doing their jobs after receiving a complaint.

This is hardly one episode. For many years, probably decades, trans-women have faced problems with using public restrooms. Harassment, fines, even beatings. In some places, even before the bill in question, it is illegal for them to use the restroom of the gender they identify and present as.

My driver's license and passport both show my Sex as 'Male' and I am thus not permitted to use a Female public restroom. We needn't vilify security personnel who would get in trouble for not investigating a complaint. The I.D. is a legal document.

They should be called out on it. It was stupid to harass the woman and assume that she wasn't a woman.

 

[Revoltingest]

They should be called out on it. It was stupid to harass the woman and assume that she wasn't a woman.

Knowing how bullies behave, they could very well believe she
was a woman, but rub in their humiliation with the "sir" address.

 

[Acim]

Definitely harassment. Not sure how/why lesbian aspect matters. Not sure why security personnel wouldn't escort person to bathroom that they feel is fitting of the person they are observing. Not saying that would be right, but would make sense if observing someone is in line to use a restroom. Just could handle it with more tact, and is what I think is the real issue. But also think if I or anyone was in that type of job for awhile, we'd have idealistic versions of how all transactions with the public ought to play out, and then the everyday reality of how it actually plays out. I'm thinking if cameras were on everyone at all times in society with the entire internet being judges of what makes for appropriate behavior in all situations that very few of us would pass with flying colors. I'd be highly surprised if anyone passed the proverbial test 100% of the time. Heck, including all beings in history, I'd be highly surprised if the test were passed 100% of the time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My driver's license and passport both show my Sex as 'Male' and I am thus not permitted to use a Female public restroom. We needn't vilify security personnel who would get in trouble for not investigating a complaint. The I.D. is a legal document.

My ID says "F" and has a female name, but I use the men's room.

 

[Revoltingest]

My ID says "F" and has a female name, but I use the men's room.

Any bully of a cop with a bee up his butt would still want to hassle you no matter which lav you chose.
(Please excuse the imagery there.....but I just had to say it that way.)

 

[fantome profane]

My driver's license and passport both show my Sex as 'Male' and I am thus not permitted to use a Female public restroom. We needn't vilify security personnel who would get in trouble for not investigating a complaint. The I.D. is a legal document.

Unless you are peeing while driving a car you don't need your driver's license to go to the bathroom, and unless the bathroom crosses international boarders you don't need your passport either. Are we going to start issuing bathroom licenses? (Hilary's woman card would come in handy here)

People are still missing my point. I don't care what her gender was. It seems from the story and from witness accounts she was female (and presumably still is) . But I don't care. Even if this was an androgynous looking dude, if all he was doing was going in there to pee, leave him alone. If he or she is causing a disturbance or harassing someone absolutely have them removed (and possibly arrested). If someone is causing a disturbance in the woman's (or man's) bathroom they should be removed regardless of their gender. But if someone is not causing a disturbance and just wants to pee, leave them alone.

So that is why I ask, what possible difference would her ID make?

 

[George-ananda]

Unless you are peeing while driving a car you don't need your driver's license to go to the bathroom, and unless the bathroom crosses international boarders you don't need your passport either. Are we going to start issuing bathroom licenses? (Hilary's woman card would come in handy here)

I agree, but an ID is helpful in that very, very rare case that someone challenges you. An ID would have settled any complaint on the spot. (I seriously wonder in this case if the woman did have ID but wanted to provoke an incident.) Without ID, it is a judgment call of the security person and he will probably play it safe and ask the person to leave. Otherwise, he could have waited in the restroom until the complainant or the woman in question left the restroom. Why the vilification of the security person (that was my only point in jumping into this thread)?

People are still missing my point. I don't care what her gender was. It seems from the story and from witness accounts she was female (and presumably still is) . But I don't care. Even if this was an androgynous looking dude, if all he was doing was going in there to pee, leave him alone. If he or she is causing a disturbance or harassing someone absolutely have them removed (and possibly arrested). If someone is causing a disturbance in the woman's (or man's) bathroom they should be removed regardless of their gender. But if someone is not causing a disturbance and just wants to pee, leave them alone.

So that is why I ask, what possible difference would her ID make?

People are trying to prevent a problem BEFORE it happens. A 'male' appearing person (more manly than the OP person and quite possibly a man), arouses what many feel are reasonable suspicions of inappropriate intentions. We're told to report suspicious activity (it's a judgment call as to what should be reported).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My driver's license and passport both show my Sex as 'Male' and I am thus not permitted to use a Female public restroom. We needn't vilify security personnel who would get in trouble for not investigating a complaint. The I.D. is a legal document.

Unless the police are detaining you, you are under no obligation to give them your ID, and there are no laws that saw you have to have it with you at all times.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People are trying to prevent a problem BEFORE it happens. A 'male' appearing person (more manly than the OP person and quite possibly a man), arouses what many feel are reasonable suspicions of inappropriate intentions. We're told to report suspicious activity (it's a judgment call as to what should be reported).

Except it's no different than reporting a young black man as suspicious just because you see him walking around. There is no inherent risk, no danger, and reason for alarm. Except different in a way, because there just are not any men going around dressed as women to go peeking in the women's restroom.

 

[George-ananda]

Except it's no different than reporting a young black man as suspicious just because you see him walking around. There is no inherent risk, no danger, and reason for alarm. Except different in a way, because there just are not any men going around dressed as women to go peeking in the women's restroom.

It's a judgment call. Would you report a creepy looking man in the lady's room?

 

[fantome profane]

An ID would have settled any complaint on the spot.

But would it really? Play the scenario out in your mind. Let's imagine this woman was really doing something wrong. Imagine she was yelling out profanities, harassing people, imagine her doing whatever terrible behaviour you want. Now the police come in and ask her for her ID. But instead of what happened imagine she pulled out her driver's license with that all so important little "F" on it. So what? Is her bad behaviour in the woman's room now ok? If she was really guilty of something she should be removed regardless whether she has a little F or a little M on her license.


This is why I keep asking, and you have not answered, if she was doing something wrong what difference would her ID make?

Why the vilification of the security person (that was my only point in jumping into this thread)?

They did the wrong thing. Even in asking for an ID they made the issue about her gender and not about her behaviour (which for all we know she did nothing wrong).

People are trying to prevent a problem BEFORE it happens.

And in that attempt creating a problem and harassing an innocent person.

And don't tell me this is a noble attempt to prevent problems. There has never been any reported cases of transgender people going into the washroom and harassing people. It has never been a problem. This is a movement by bigoted politicians trying to score political points by appealing to the worst instincts of humanity.

 

[fantome profane]

It's a judgment call. Would you report a creepy looking man in the lady's room?

Judging people are the bases of looks is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a judgment call. Would you report a creepy looking man in the lady's room?

I'd have to access the situation. It's likely he just made a mistake. It happens. Now need for alarm or police involvement over such a thing. No, if he refused to leave, then yes. But, what is "creepy looking?" Why would I make such a judgement based on appearance rather than behaviors?
But that is not the issue at hand. It's not even remotely the same.

 

[George-ananda]

But would it really? Play the scenario out in your mind. Let's imagine this woman was really doing something wrong. Imagine she was yelling out profanities, harassing people, imagine her doing whatever terrible behaviour you want. Now the police come in and ask her for her ID. But instead of what happened imagine she pulled out her driver's license with that all so important little "F" on it. So what? Is her bad behaviour in the woman's room now ok?

??? This is really unrelated to the OP scenario we are discussing.

This is why I keep asking, and you have not answered, if she was doing something wrong what difference would her ID make?

She'd be in trouble for whatever she did wrong; not the wrong gender bathroom issue. Just intentionally entering an opposite sex bathroom is doing something wrong!! I am not understanding what is not clear about this?

They did the wrong thing. Even in asking for an ID they made the issue about her gender and not about her behaviour (which for all we know she did nothing wrong).

Do you mean a normal man intentionally using the lady's room and doing no observable harm is OK?

And don't tell me this is a noble attempt to prevent problems. There has never been any reported cases of transgender people going into the washroom and harassing people. It has never been a problem. This is a movement by bigoted politicians trying to score political points by appealing to the worst instincts of humanity.

Again, that is a different subject than what I have been discussing. Men will still not be allowed to use lady's rooms.

 

[George-ananda]

I'd have to access the situation. It's likely he just made a mistake. It happens. Now need for alarm or police involvement over such a thing. No, if he refused to leave, then yes.

That is a sensible way to handle it I would say. But some women may be more cautious than you. Security has to investigate.

But, what is "creepy looking?" Why would I make such a judgement based on appearance rather than behaviors?
But that is not the issue at hand. It's not even remotely the same.

The word 'creepy' is actually irrelevant to my point. What if he just clearly looks like a man..