Come on. There is no law in any US state regarding wearing shoes. Sexual predation is universally criminal by definition
Oh, but we aren't talking about sexual predation, we're talking about sexual predators. In general, there is nothing illegal about a sexual predator going into a restaurant or its bathroom. The relevant equivalence here is what you do about removing someone from somewhere they are not wanted.
Youve been invoking Bryson constantly to refute my examples. Suddenly he's no longer representative of the characters in your examples? Come on, man.
He's not representative of trans people in general. He IS representative of a class of people who pose a problem, one which you don't want to do anything about.
And indecent exposure/ lewd and lascivious conduct are again, not like Jeff scoring some snacks. They are not in the same comparative universe.
I said nothing about indecent exposure or lewd and lascivious conduct. Those are not required. Do you not understand that even the mere
presence of Bryson in a women's bathroom is a problem?
And in a changing room where males are permitted, a naked male is not committing indecent exposure. Nevertheless, I think a naked and intact male in a women's changing room is a problem. It seems you do not.
Yet again: what kind of Mayberry are you theorizing where Andy and Barney have nothing to do but respond to ◊◊◊◊ like this? They don't even pursue rape with anything resembling diligence.
Are you under the impression that police won't trespass you from a store that wants to kick you out? They do. It's routine.
Rolfe currently claims she doesn't show up, given full legal protection, for the reasons I'm basically proposing. No one is going to give a ◊◊◊◊ except the tranny bashers who now feel empowered.
Rolfe cares. She has essentially been excluded from a venue. YOU don't care, but again, you are indifferent to the problems that women face if they don't face you as well.
Of course they are. And such people are more than willing to make a scene with or without a policy in their favor, or against them. They are unaffected by policy.
Of course they are affected by policy. The outcome of such a scene is directly determined by policy. They have a preferred outcome. They don't get their preferred outcome if the policy doesn't favor them. That strongly disincentivizes them to make such a scene. Most people who are
willing to make a scene do not have making a scene as their end goal, but is merely an acceptable means to it.
What makes you think a cop wants to step into that with any policy in place?
Because it's their ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ job.
As I've said, I agree with sex segregation, as a practical matter.
No you don't. You have stated that you want self ID. As a practical matter, that means the abolishment of sex segregation.
Maybe I'm more tolerant of the rare nonconforming person than you are (understatement of the year).
I don't care if they are nonconforming. That's not the issue. They can be as non-conforming as they want to be. But when males invade female-only spaces, that creates problems. You aren't just tolerant of non-conformity, you are tolerant of the problems they create for women. Because you don't care about those problems.
Making it work fairly and legally is not a simple task
Making it work legally is a very simple task. It had been working simply for a very long time until the TRA's ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up. You have strange notions of what fairness consists of, so if it isn't fair according to you, oh well.
By acknowledging gender as your representation/ID, but not your sex, I think the problems resolve for both our sides neatly.
No. The idea that gender is a matter for public policy is precisely what
created the problems we have. How in the everloving ◊◊◊◊ would the thing that created the problem somehow solve it?
It reverts to the status quo we've been at.
The status quo was segregation by sex and not gender.