You cannot decree that this thread has to be restricted to bathrooms. It might be convenient for you, but I don’t give a ◊◊◊◊.
I didn't decree that, and I didn't ask for that. You asked me about dressing rooms and I agreed with you.
You refuse to concede that you're wrong about bathrooms, because as it turns out, the dogmatic beliefs do not lie with me.
Is that a real attempt to get an answer from women, or more mansplaining?
You still haven't answered my question about where I mansplained anything. Seems like a charge you're just throwing around in the same way people use "You have privilege" to mean "Due to your privilege, you aren't allowed to express an opinion about this, or even relevant facts."
But it was a real question. If I see a guy who's a foot taller than me and built like a linebacker doing something that suggests criminal intent, I'm not going to confront him directly. I'd look for somebody who deals with that on a professional basis, like a security guard or a property manager, and if I can't find them I'd call the cops.
Some people absolutely do.
In exactly the way the change in law was intended to allow them to.
No there isn't. Any male is permitted to use them, by law.
This is still factually incorrect, no matter how many times you care to repeat it. What we have here is legalism with zero attention given to the content of the law, academic arguments without academic distinction.
The law imposes a very minor condition on such use (you have to "identify" as a woman), but that is a condition which any male could satisfy, if they chose to do so. Hence, unisex with extra steps, the extra step being to choose to "identify" as a woman.
And it's a condition that is sufficient to prevent people from treating gender-segregated bathrooms as unisex in practice. Which means they aren't
de facto unisex, because that's what
de facto means.
I really wonder about some of you. How does this work, in your mind? John/Jane Q. Public, standing between the entrance to the women's and men's bathrooms, thinks "Hmmm, which of these unisex bathrooms, one curiously and quaintly labeled with ♀, the other with ♂ shall I use today?"
I cannot say that I have ever
chosen not to use the women's room, because it just doesn't occur to me that it's an option in the first place. Your complaint here is effectively that this is an honor system. Well, it always was, and the honor system, in the case of bathrooms, anyway, seems to work just fine.
Do you you see why that definition doesn't protect women from unwanted exposure if males can enter their bathrooms?
That's pretty evident from the facts of the case. It does not seem wise to tinker too much with that definition, however, since doing so could expose
anyone in a public accommodation that permits nudity to criminal liability. There are presumably other legal avenues that could be pursued.
Hard cases make bad law.
