Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
What would she sue them for exactly? They are ostensibly executing the law of the land.

"Dressing like a dude" is in violation of the law of the land?

The cops aren't stationed at public bathrooms here in NC. For the cops to show up at that bathroom somebody had to call them. If the cops respond to a call of somebody complaining of a possible man in the ladies bathroom and when they show up they find somebody dressed to look like a man and refusing to identify herself as a woman then the cops are going to ask that person to leave. That's the sensible response from the cops when they have an uncooperative person in the bathroom. If she had identified herself as a woman they would have let her stay her refusal to do so is why they asked her to leave. Nobody was arrested, nobody was handcuffed or mistreated. Somebody felt the need to call the cops so they arrived and the person in question was uncooperative so they asked her to leave. No big deal, certainly nothing to substantiate a lawsuit.

What the hell is dressed to look like a man? One of the daughter's friends went to prom in a tuxedo for crying out loud.

While that outfit was a clear fashion penalty (clashing colors-10 yard penalty, first down), it wasn't looking like a man. No man dresses like that. (no non-blind woman dresses like that...)

Prestor Jon wrote:
. If she had identified herself as a woman they would have let her stay her refusal to do so is why they asked her to leave.

She did identify herself as a woman, they refused to believe her and requested identification which is not supported by the law. It violates both her 4th amendment rights and potentially her 5th amendment rights (were she actually transgender) to ask her for ID in this situation.

So her rights were violated.

Hopefully the police sent in female officers... otherwise just think of the children!

How can they enforce it without asking people strip down or produce a birth certificate on the spot?

It's a messy situation anyway, I can see the sense in a zero tolerance policy. I assume police can always throw a man out of the ladies' toilets. So What if someone seems like they trying it on and a policeman challenges them? What if they look a bit feminine but it's not obvious? Does the officer have to make a judgment on whether they are enough woman looking to go in the ladies? If they refuse entry to someone are they going to later get singled out for some discrimination case? Police aren't going to want to touch this with a barge pole if they are left to determine which people look female enough to go in the ladies' toilets because they are setting themselves up to be accused by a transgender person of discriminating against them, or accused by women of being remiss in letting a perv in the wrong toilets.

 Frazzled wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
What would she sue them for exactly? They are ostensibly executing the law of the land.

"Dressing like a dude" is in violation of the law of the land?

The cops aren't stationed at public bathrooms here in NC. For the cops to show up at that bathroom somebody had to call them. If the cops respond to a call of somebody complaining of a possible man in the ladies bathroom and when they show up they find somebody dressed to look like a man and refusing to identify herself as a woman then the cops are going to ask that person to leave. That's the sensible response from the cops when they have an uncooperative person in the bathroom. If she had identified herself as a woman they would have let her stay her refusal to do so is why they asked her to leave. Nobody was arrested, nobody was handcuffed or mistreated. Somebody felt the need to call the cops so they arrived and the person in question was uncooperative so they asked her to leave. No big deal, certainly nothing to substantiate a lawsuit.

What the hell is dressed to look like a man? One of the daughter's friends went to prom in a tuxedo for crying out loud.

While that outfit was a clear fashion penalty (clashing colors-10 yard penalty, first down), it wasn't looking like a man. No man dresses like that. (no non-blind woman dresses like that...)

It was enough to make somebody call the cops. Once the police are on the scene they're going to resolve the situation in whatever manner they think best. If nobody called the cops nothing would have happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
. If she had identified herself as a woman they would have let her stay her refusal to do so is why they asked her to leave.

She did identify herself as a woman, they refused to believe her and requested identification which is not supported by the law. It violates both her 4th amendment rights and potentially her 5th amendment rights (were she actually transgender) to ask her for ID in this situation.

So her rights were violated.

Asking her for ID doesn't violate anything. She wasn't arrested or charged or even detained. Being asked to leave the bathroom isn't a rights violation. The police were called in to the bathroom. They asked the people that were in the bathroom to vacate the bathroom because apparently their presence or behavior was creating a situation that made somebody call the police. Dispersing the people out of the bathroom resolved the situation. No one was harmed, no one suffered any legal penalty, there's no grounds for a lawsuit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How can they enforce it without asking people strip down or produce a birth certificate on the spot?

It's a messy situation anyway, I can see the sense in a zero tolerance policy. I assume police can always throw a man out of the ladies' toilets. So What if someone seems like they trying it on and a policeman challenges them? What if they look a bit feminine but it's not obvious? Does the officer have to make a judgment on whether they are enough woman looking to go in the ladies? If they refuse entry to someone are they going to later get singled out for some discrimination case? Police aren't going to want to touch this with a barge pole if they are left to determine which people look female enough to go in the ladies' toilets because they are setting themselves up to be accused by a transgender person of discriminating against them, or accused by women of being remiss in letting a perv in the wrong toilets.

Nobody is enforcing the law in regards to the bathroom assignment in HB2. There are no police assets being assigned to check birth certificate gender assignments of everyone using public bathrooms. If somebody calls the police the police will show up. If there is some sort of disturbance in the bathroom the cops will break it up and ask people to leave. The police weren't stationed at that bathroom and they weren't conducting some kind of sting operation. Somebody called them, either because there was concern over who was in the bathroom or possibly just to create some agenda driven video footage of police dealing with a lesbian in a public bathroom. The interaction with the cops never would have happened of the cops weren't summoned and the group in the bathroom weren't still present when they arrived.

So, this was an efficient use of the cops resources? Is that what you're saying? Sure, someone called the police, but most likely because they didn't like the way someone looked when they entered the bathroom. GEE, DOESN'T THAT SOUND FAMILIAR. Also, said person was asked to leave because they were still in the bathroom when the cops showed up? And that's okay to you? What?!?

 jreilly89 wrote:
So, this was an efficient use of the cops resources? Is that what you're saying? Sure, someone called the police, but most likely because they didn't like the way someone looked when they entered the bathroom. GEE, DOESN'T THAT SOUND FAMILIAR. Also, said person was asked to leave because they were still in the bathroom when the cops showed up? And that's okay to you? What?!?

Not to put words in his mouth, but I believe he was just pointing out that the police were almost certainly responding to a call and attempting to resolve the situation. Doesn't mean he personally agrees with it, (or doesn't). Just that police responding to a citizen call and handling the situation (without violence) in a way others may disagree with doesn't instantly make it OMG CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION!!!!

Since this is obviously going to be a thing, I'm going to change the title to make it a general purpose transgender bathroom thread.

The Target one is a little older though, and someone already posted about the new Alabama law in it? I think I'm going to report this post and ask a mod.

 Goliath wrote:

Good thing they managed to stop that evil predatorlesbian from ogling people in the toilets.

Which brings up the big thing that I find completely ridiculous about this whole carry-on over toilets...

People are insisting on laws requiring people to use the toilets that correspond to their birth gender on the off chance that a guy might pose as a woman in order to ogle at women in the ladies' room... but it's apparently ok for homosexuals to walk into the same bathroom and ogle to their heart's content.


The whole situation is absurd.

 insaniak wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

Good thing they managed to stop that evil predatorlesbian from ogling people in the toilets.

Which brings up the big thing that I find completely ridiculous about this whole carry-on over toilets...

People are insisting on laws requiring people to use the toilets that correspond to their birth gender on the off chance that a guy might pose as a woman in order to ogle at women in the ladies' room... but it's apparently ok for homosexuals to walk into the same bathroom and ogle to their heart's content.


The whole situation is absurd.

We could just have single toilet bathrooms... That would solve all these problems (might not solve any money issues)

 jreilly89 wrote:
So, this was an efficient use of the cops resources? Is that what you're saying? Sure, someone called the police, but most likely because they didn't like the way someone looked when they entered the bathroom. GEE, DOESN'T THAT SOUND FAMILIAR. Also, said person was asked to leave because they were still in the bathroom when the cops showed up? And that's okay to you? What?!?

If somebody calls the cops I have no problem with the cops showing up. Do you know what was said in the call to the police and how the situation was described? I don't and it isn't shown in the video but the content of that call was enough to convince the police to dispatch officers to the scene.

The police arrived at the scene and found people loitering in a bathroom and asked them to disperse thereby resolving the situation. No force was used no arrests were made. Nobody has a right to loiter in a bathroom and if the police are called they're going to undertake some modicum of action to resolve the situation so they don't get called back out because it continued. Telling people standing around in a public bathroom to move along isn't a heavy handed abuse of police power.

I share your opinion that the video really doesn't show anything that I think is some kind of disturbance that unruly enough to justify a call to the police. Which makes you wonder why somebody did call the cops, who it was and what was said and what a coincidence it was that those people hung out in the bathroom long enough to be sure to be there when the cops arrived.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

Good thing they managed to stop that evil predatorlesbian from ogling people in the toilets.

Which brings up the big thing that I find completely ridiculous about this whole carry-on over toilets...

People are insisting on laws requiring people to use the toilets that correspond to their birth gender on the off chance that a guy might pose as a woman in order to ogle at women in the ladies' room... but it's apparently ok for homosexuals to walk into the same bathroom and ogle to their heart's content.


The whole situation is absurd.

The people of the state never insisted on having HB2. There was no grass roots movement calling for it. The legislature called an emergency session and passed it. The whole thing took the public off guard. This wasn't a campaign issue until after the law was passed.

Prestor Jon wrote:


The people of the state never insisted on having HB2. There was no grass roots movement calling for it. The legislature called an emergency session and passed it. The whole thing took the public off guard. This wasn't a campaign issue until after the law was passed.

I said 'people'...not 'the people'...

Maybe we should just ban restrooms all together and force businesses/workplace to use porta potties:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe we should just ban restrooms all together and force businesses/workplace to use porta potties:

Ever see what an artillery simulator does to one of those?

Oh my.

 whembly wrote:
Maybe we should just ban restrooms all together and force businesses/workplace to use porta potties:

The Horror.... The Horror!

It would be a lesson to all Lawmakers to beware the unintended consequences of the laws you make.

A museum near me has a row of unisex cubicles instead of his/hers. Use a cubicle, no matter who you are. It's your private loo while you are using it.

So, the days or a room with troughs and another without may be coming to an end.

 whembly wrote:
Maybe we should just ban restrooms all together and force businesses/workplace to use porta potties:

There's gold in them thar toilets!

Black gold!

Seriously, though. Portapotties are disgusting.