Jesus Christ dude, you find the very police guidelines that say a cop cannot argue or debate about a person's identity, followed by clear conditions when the officer can act on his reason for suspicion, providing those reasons are "compelling, professional, and articulable". Yet here you are, still trying to deny that.
I did. Looks like a man, and also looks like a transwoman.
This doesn't mean anything. There are no "steps" to a unisex bathroom. It's just a bathroom everyone is allowed to use.
Those steps, according to your massively flawed understanding, include willful deceit, which, as Dr Smartcooky was so kind as to recently document, does not have to be accepted. If the cop does not accept the claim for good reason, the cop can disregard it.
Under NJ law, everyone is allowed to use the "women's" restroom. That seems unisex to me.
Christ, another person willing to argue the law without understanding it.
There is no magic phrase that unlocks access for anyone. There's no verification involved, and there never was. You just go in.
Surely you can see it's misleading to leave half of those off while feigning quotation.
Which usage did you mean? I'm guessing "a writer is purposely misusing a word or phrase" but it's hard to say.
Not all males, to be sure, but some males.
It's not remotely misleading since it's an immediate and necessary implication, and I'm not feigning quotation. I'm distancing myself from the idea that the women's room is "inclusive of males". Because it's exactly backwards.
It's not hard to say at all for people who are minimally familiar with the concept, who don't feel the obligation to act like they just arrived on this planet and are trying to figure the world out exclusively by reading Wikipedia.
Absurd.
Which means they aren't unisex bathrooms. Because unisex bathrooms are inclusive of all males.
I'd say one was inclusive of the whole set of males. I doubt you're going to get trespassed from the men's room if you're male under any circumstances.
Unless you know what numbers are.
It's codified very specifically in law, so it was at the very least legally provided for.
We can’t have penis police, but we can’t have gender police. Even though there is no legal justification for it, and it’s never happened in the context of bathrooms in New Jersey.
Now we're getting somewhere. You clearly don't mean unisex in the sense I linked at #12,271 but rather in some slightly but significantly narrower sense.
I propose to test this empirically, but I'm going to need someone trollish like Blaire White.
Agreed, much easier. But necessary, or even desirable or beneficial? I dunno.
How's that? The allowability of presence was never at issue. Hell, he was called "he" in court documents and jury instruction. No magic words were invoked.*laughs* in Merager defense attorney
Not so much a narrower sense, but the actual sense of the actual noun phrase unisex bathroom in the Standard American English dialect (and various other synonymous noun phrases.) How could unisex bathroom be synonymous with gender-neutral bathroom if it didn't mean this?
But it does change something about the maleness of the groups they're a part of.
We've fought wars over less.
Not remotely, but that has nothing to do with what I said at all.
Fair enough.