Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

I think the point is being somewhat lost here. Management is not in the restaurant bathrooms (unless it has been called). Corporate policy is not in the restaurant bathrooms. The only thing there to guide customers is the sign, Male or Female. Which room will your casual fast-food-seeking trans-identifying man choose to go into? Polka thinks the sign would give him pause, that he would know just from the sign that he wasn't supposed to go into the Female space. I maintain that if this was the case we would hear about protests against these establishments from trans activists, complaining of transphobia and demanding the signs be changed. No such protest has been reported.

 

[Ziggurat]

THERE IS NO CORPORATE POLICY.

I'm not talking about a policy on signage. I'm talking about a policy on access. And you have explicitly stated multiple times that there is such a policy.

McDs corporate policy is to allow access.

McDonalds, as I posted earlier, has a stated corporate policy of their guests using the restroom that aligns with the individual's gender identity.

The signage doesn't matter, and any possible policy (or lack thereof) on signage doesn't matter, because regardless of the sign, trans identifying males can still enter the women's/female bathroom. Because that's what their corporate policy is, and you have said on multiple occassions.

Please do try to keep up.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not talking about a policy on signage. I'm talking about a policy on access.

THERE IS NO POLICY ON ACCESS.

And you have explicitly stated multiple times that there is such a policy.

I HAVE NOT. I HAVE SAID MCD SUPPORTS GENDER ID ACCESS BUT HAS NO POLICY WHATSOEVER FOR ITS FRANCHISEES EXCEPT TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL LAW.

Please do try to keep up.

Back atcha.

 

[smartcooky]

What is the goalpost? Reported crime statistics?

That should never have been the goalpost in the first place. The goalpost should have been problems created by male access to female spaces. Reported crime stats are one measure of a subset of those problems, so they are relevant, but they have never been a measure of the whole set of problems. Your attempt to narrow it to only that metric of that subset is itself a goalpost move.

If we follow his arguments to their logical conclusion, only a small number of actual rapes are reported, and since the ones that aren't reported don't appear in any statistics, we can safely ignore them and conclude that rape is fictional... it doesn't happen. Amirite?

 

[Ziggurat]

I HAVE NOT.

You did say exactly that. I just quoted you. If you want to say your previous statements were in error, go ahead, but I'm just quoting what you said.

 

[d4m10n]

I maintain that if this was the case we would hear about protests against these establishments from trans activists, complaining of transphobia and demanding the signs be changed.

If these establishments actually enforced sorting by sex at birth, we'd probably hear about protests.

Until then, the signs are there for the rule-following sort of folks who like to read and heed signage.

 

[Rolfe]

The signs do not matter. They can say male and female or men and women or gentlemen and ladies, it makes no difference. The trans people will go where they please, and will be unimpeded until someone complains. When that happens the complaint will be handled according to policy. Policy is entirely independent of whatever it says on the signs.

I'll guarantee you there is not one trans-identifying man who will waltz happily into a space marked women or ladies, believing he is entirely at liberty to do so, who would then pause - even mentally, for a moment - at a sign saying female, thinking, I shouldn't really be here.

 

[Thermal]

You did say exactly that. I just quoted you. If you want to say your previous statements were in error, go ahead, but I'm just quoting what you said.

MCDONALDS IS A CORPORATE ENTITY. IN ITS OWN BUILDINGS, IT ALLOWS RESTROOM ACCESS BASED ON THEIR GUESTS GENDER IDENTITY.

SINCE THEY HAVE NO POILICY FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL FRANCHISES, WHICH ARE OWNED BY OTHERS, THIS POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO SAID INDIVIDUAL PROPRIETORS.OR THEIR RESTROOMS.

I mean Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Christ, dude.

 

[Thermal]

...But requiring him to use the correct bathroom wouldn't be refusing him anything as far as I can see.

Under State law, the "correct" restroom is the one that aligns with the individual's gender identity. It is a crime to deny them access to it based on your personal interpretation of their gender.

 

[Ziggurat]

Under State law, the "correct" restroom is the one that aligns with the individual's gender identity. It is a crime to deny them access to it based on your personal interpretation of their gender.

I agree, under New Jersey law, keeping him out of or removing him from the women's restroom would have been illegal.

And that's a problem.

 

[Thermal]

I agree, under New Jersey law, keeping him out of or removing him from the women's restroom would have been illegal.

And that's a problem.

If there was a child involved who was "scared", I think the manager had every right to intervene, if only to verify everything was safe for all concerned. If a young boy reported being scared by a man in the rest room, they have a right to police that too.

I'm pretty sure we will hear some kind of follow-up, maybe the McD showing common area surveillance tape of the child entering the restroom,, and the transgender person soon afterwards. If the transperson was shown to be lying, that's a strong credibility hit for the rest of their story.

If they don't present such footage, management ain't looking so good. But then how did management know there was anything at all going on in the women's room?

 

[theprestige]

How did you arrive at that dichotomy? I can think of several others. How about compliance with our own anti-discrimination laws? Or simple civility, and steering clear of hate laws and harassment?

All laws can be changed. Some laws should be changed. Laws guaranteeing men an entitlement to enter women's restrooms whenever they want should be changed.

Arguments of the form "the moral and ethical good is whatever the law says it is at this particular moment in time" always baffle me.

Also, what about the simple civility of men staying out of women's restrooms? It is generally considered uncivil for a man to enter a womens' restroom, absent some pressing need.

You elided the entire question of pressing need, when responding to my post. I interpret this to mean you see no pressing need for men of any kind, trans-identifying or otherwise, to flout the conventions of civility, when it comes to men staying out of women's restrooms.

Why does your concern about civility only go one way? Why does your standard of civility privilege men over women?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm pretty sure we will hear some kind of follow-up, maybe the McD showing common area surveillance tape of the child entering the restroom,, and the transgender person soon afterwards.

That's from 2016. We will not hear anything else. Because nothing else happened.

If the transperson was shown to be lying, that's a strong credibility hit for the rest of their story.

We already know the trans person lied. He already changed his story. The restaurant has no incentive to follow up on a complaint that went nowhere.

If they don't present such footage, management ain't looking so good. But then how did management know there was anything at all going on in the women's room?

They know a girl complained about his presence. So they investigated. That's all they did. That's all they could do.

But they should have the power to eject him from the restroom, and they do not.

 

[Thermal]

All laws can be changed. Some laws should be changed. Laws guaranteeing men an entitlement to enter women's restrooms whenever they want should be changed.

Arguments of the form "the moral and ethical good is whatever the law says it is at this particular moment in time" always baffle me.

That was not the argument. The argument was that the dichotomy presented was capriciously restricted.

Also, what about the simple civility of men staying out of women's restrooms? It is generally considered uncivil for a man to enter a womens' restroom, absent some pressing need.

You elided the entire question of pressing need, when responding to my post.

Sorry. It was a long post, which you shortened yourself by arguing the positions. That I wasn't arguing for medical need made me kind of shrug my shoulders.

I interpret this to mean you see no pressing need for men of any kind, trans-identifying or otherwise, to flout the conventions of civility, when it comes to men staying out of women's restrooms.

Males who identify as men should stay out of them. I believe we are discussing transwomen.

Why does your concern about civility only go one way?

It doesnt. As I've said many times, I'm discussing this with skeptics, hoping to get a better take than we find on Twitter and the like.

Why does your standard of civility privilege men over women?

It doesn't.

 

[theprestige]

We don't call a paranoid schizophrenic a Targeted Individual, just because they have a delusion of being gangstalked. Not even if they say that "paranoid schizophrenic" is an offensive term that invalidates the lived experience of gangstalking victims.

 

[Thermal]

That's from 2016. We will not hear anything else. Because nothing else happened.

I didn't check the date, and assumed it was a contemporary story. It seems to predate the adoption of the NJ gender equality laws, then.

We already know the trans person lied. He already changed his story. The restaurant has no incentive to follow up on a complaint that went nowhere.

I didn't see a follow up on the nine year old story. I'll go back and reread.

They know a girl complained about his presence. So they investigated. That's all they did. That's all they could do.

That's one side, yes. Again, I must have missed the follow up reporting somewhere.

But they should have the power to eject him from the restroom, and they do not.

I do believe they did, now that the date is clear, based on the old "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" principle, which is alive and well (barring protected class discrimination). Just being loud or disruptive in NJ is enough to legally get the heave-ho.

Eta: not seeing this follow up reporting anywhere? The stories are all from late May 2016.

 

[Thermal]

We don't call a paranoid schizophrenic a Targeted Individual, just because they have a delusion of being gangstalked. Not even if they say that "paranoid schizophrenic" is an offensive term that invalidates the lived experience of gangstalking victims.

That's a very disturbed person thar often cannot even function on their own and is frequently very tormented and suffer horrifically from their condition. Transpeople are normally ok and function fine, without undue distress. Apples, oranges.

 

[theprestige]

That's a very disturbed person thar often cannot even function on their own and is frequently very tormented and suffer horrifically from their condition. Transpeople are normally ok and function fine, without undue distress. Apples, oranges.

A delusion is a delusion. They all need treatment, not enablement.

But okay, sure. Trans identifying males get by just fine, with no real distress, if they're not allowed in women's restrooms. Is that your argument?

 

[lionking]

So here's an example of a problem that occurred in New Jersey due to a trans identifying male entering a women's bathroom (in this case, at a McDonalds):

Transgender Woman Says She Was Harassed and Told to Leave After Using Bathroom at NJ McDonald's

A Delaware transgender woman says she was harassed and told to leave a Gloucester County McDonald’s after she used the women’s restroom.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

According to the manager (who I find more credible, seeing as how the trans person contradicted himself when talking to reporters), the manager approached the trans person because of a complaint from a girl about his presence. Note that no illegal activity is alleged. This incident WILL NOT show up in any police reports. But it's still a problem. Misty Hill does not pass as female, not even close. I would be incredibly uncomfortable with his presence in a women's bathroom at the same time as my child. And obviously the child was uncomfortable too. Now, Thermal might not care about this sort of case. After all, Misty didn't assault the child. But that is, frankly, not good enough.

Oh, and you can learn more than you probably ever wanted to know about the sort of person Misty Hill actually is here (including a rather expected fascination with menstrual products):

Misty Lana Hill / Brian Casey Pierce / diracdrynx

I've never made one of these posts before, so if I ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up, let me know. I'm usually more for commenting than making original content, sorry. Farms, meet Brian, a beyootiful lady. http://archive.is/WyCNN /cow/ already talked about this one back in March, but he's been up to so much, I...

kiwifarms.st

That child had good instincts to be afraid of him.

Yes, another thing that just doesn’t happen……

 

[lionking]

Thermal, has it ever occurred to you that offensive behaviour in women’s restrooms in your state are no longer reported as crimes because of your stupid transgender laws?