Police remove woman from woman's bathroom.

[fantome profane]

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

There are only two possible scenerios here. Either she did something wrong and should be removed regardless of her gender. Or she did not do anything wrong and should be left alone regardless of her gender. Choose whichever of these you like, either way her gender and therefore her ID make absolutely no difference,.

She'd be in trouble for whatever she did wrong; not the wrong gender bathroom issue.

Absolutely right, that is my point. Her ID would make no difference at all.

Just intentionally entering an opposite sex bathroom is doing something wrong!! I am not understanding what is not clear about this?

Absolutely wrong. I am perfectly clear about this and it is perfectly clear that you are absolutely wrong. The is nothing wrong with someone using either washroom as long as they are not harassing anybody. It is not wrong and untill these recent series of new bathroom laws targeting the transgender it has never been illegal either. And it has never been a problem.

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

That is exactly what I mean. Who is to say what is normal looking anyway?

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

We have never had a major problem with this happening

 

[George-ananda]

The is nothing wrong with someone using either washroom as long as they are not harassing anybody.

We hit the crux of our difference. I think 99% of the people will think it is wrong for a man to intentionally use the women's room in a public place.

 

[fantome profane]

We hit the crux of our difference. I think 99% of the people will think it is wrong for a man to intentionally use the women's room in a public place.

But this is just a social convention. It has never been a law. And as a social convention it works pretty well. There has never been a need to check driver's license in the bathroom. If you go into the bathroom and you see someone you think should not be there you can leave and come back latter, or you can find another washroom, or you can just ignore them. But unless they are doing something wrong you cannot harass them just because you don't like the way they look.

 

[George-ananda]

But this is just a social convention. It has never been a law. And as a social convention it works pretty well. There has never been a need to check driver's license in the bathroom. If you go into the bathroom and you see someone you think should not be there you can leave and come back latter, or you can just ignore them. But unless they are doing something wrong you cannot harass them just because you don't like the way they look.

Society does not want unisex bathrooms in public venues and I am sure there are laws too.

 

[fantome profane]

Society does not want unisex bathrooms in public venues and I am sure there are laws too.

But we don't need the police to come into bathrooms and start demanding ID. Society does not want and will not tolerate that.

 

[lovesong]

What would be the right thing if they were investigating a complaint and the person had no ID. Make their own judgement call on male appearance? And what if the person was even more male looking (and was indeed a man without ID). I can see if there is a complaint that ID can be required. I don't know a better system.

It is not the job of the police to make judgements about a person's sex or gender. Even if she was causing a disturbance the police should have taken action based on what she did, sex and gender should have never come up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We hit the crux of our difference. I think 99% of the people will think it is wrong for a man to intentionally use the women's room in a public place.

99% of people would not agree with that because many places do not have sex-segregated restrooms.

Society does not want unisex bathrooms in public venues and I am sure there are laws too.

Actually many people do like them, and not just for the use of transsexuals, but also that it makes it much easier for parents to tend to their children.

 

[George-ananda]

But we don't need the police to come into bathrooms and start demanding ID.

Only when they are investigating a complaint.

 

[George-ananda]

It is not the job of the police to make judgements about a person's sex or gender. Even if she was causing a disturbance the police should have taken action based on what she did, sex and gender should have never come up.

Perhaps you haven't been following this discussion. We have no indication she was causing a disturbance from the OP information. We have been discussing the situation where a woman complains to security that they believe there may be a man in the women's bathroom.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps you haven't been following this discussion. We have no indication she was causing a disturbance from the OP information. We have been discussing the situation where a woman complains to security that they believe there may be a man in the women's bathroom.

It wasn't security but police. Even if someone did complain, the police acted inappropriately because clearly there was no man present.

 

[George-ananda]

99% of people would not agree with that because many places do not have sex-segregated restrooms.

What? I hope you mean only the 'one person at a time' type. I've been to Indiana before .

Actually many people do like them, and not just for the use of transsexuals, but also that it makes it much easier for parents to tend to their children.

You are talking here about the 'family' ones. A single non-handicapped male can not use them and I quote from the American Restroom Association (there is such a thing):

Family style, unisex, or single-user restrooms (often called handicapped restrooms) offer flexibility: males or females, and one or more individuals (i.e. family members), of the same or opposite sex, can use them.

 

[George-ananda]

It wasn't security but police. Even if someone did complain, the police acted inappropriately because clearly there was no man present.

CLEARLY??? So you are now expecting the police to make that judgment call? It's debatable and there will be other times when it is more debatable than that person. ID is the only way to solve this. Or should the police not even investigate and tell the complainant that there is nothing we can do about your complaint of a man in the women's restroom?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are talking here about the 'family' ones. A single non-handicapped male can not use them and I quote from the American Restroom Association (there is such a thing):

Why can't a single non-handicapped male use them?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

CLEARLY??? So you are now expecting the police to make that judgment call? It's debatable and there will be other times when it is more debatable than that person. ID is the only way to solve this. Or should the police not even investigate and tell the complainant that there is nothing we can do about your complaint of a man in the women's restroom?

The police have to tell people all the time there is nothing they can do for various reasons. And why wouldn't they tell whoever made the complaint the same, as there was no man in the women's restroom?

 

[George-ananda]

Why can't a single non-handicapped male use them?

Did you not read the quote I provided? They are intended for a group of multiple people!! Like me and my young son for example.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why can't a single non-handicapped male use them?

Anyone can use those. I have no idea what George is going on about.

 

[George-ananda]

The police have to tell people all the time there is nothing they can do for various reasons. And why wouldn't they tell whoever made the complaint the same, as there was no man in the women's restroom?

Because society wants the restroom gender specific laws enforced and society created those laws. (This has nothing to do with the recent LGBT bathroom controversy).

 

[George-ananda]

Anyone can use those. I have no idea what George is going on about.

Family style, unisex, or single-user restrooms (often called handicapped restrooms) offer flexibility: males or females, and one or more individuals (i.e. family members), of the same or opposite sex, can use them.

It is for a group of two or more. "Family' and 'Unisex' mean different things. I looked it up.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Family style, unisex, or single-user restrooms (often called handicapped restrooms) offer flexibility: males or females, and one or more individuals (i.e. family members), of the same or opposite sex, can use them.

It is for a group of two or more. "Family' and 'Unisex' mean different things. I looked it up.

The ARA is just an advocacy group and there's no laws on who can use unisex restrooms. I use them a lot.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you not read the quote I provided? They are intended for a group of multiple people!! Like me and my young son for example.

It's perfectly fine if just one person uses them. It says "and one or more individual" because it is listing off that men or women can use them as well as one or more individuals.

Because society wants the restroom gender specific laws enforced and society created those laws. (This has nothing to do with the recent LGBT bathroom controversy).

As I've been saying, it's not a recent controversy. For many years now transsexuals have faced difficulties with using public restrooms. And it's not about keeping restrooms gender segregated, but using fear to keep transsexuals disadvantaged and not accepted.