Woman exposes breasts to prove she is female at restaurant

[johnny karate]

I know, but the server lacking psychic powers, a time machine and a clear, well lit look at the victim couldn't tell that at the time

The ability to not be a weirdo who harasses women was also lacking.

 

[johnny karate]

"Appeared to be a man" seems a lot more sensible than "Appeared to be a women who didn't look feminine enough for me so I started a fight with her""

A distinction without difference with the goal being the same: To harass a woman under a flimsy and nonsensical pretense.

I condone gatekeeping of women's safe spaces

Just not this woman, whose safe space you condone taking away.

 

[johnny karate]

I do not think that bad things will happen to women if/because only unambiguously male people get harassed in womens' bathrooms.

I think 'harass everyone who isn't unambiguously female to make sure you don't miss out any possible males' is not only not 'perfect' I think it is not 'good'

It seems fairly obvious by now that harassment is the point.

The “safe space gatekeeping” is just a fig leaf.

 

[catsmate]

The ability to not be a weirdo who harasses women was also lacking.

Ah, but women have to be harassed by random, self-appointed, gatekeepers of toilet facilities in order that insufficiency female women don't use the toilets unchallenged.

 

[Manger Douse]

Dodging the facts

Nope

There was no "men entering a safe space". Also the victim wasn't trespassing, she was a customer.

The server didn't have psychic powers or a time machine

Rubbish. There was no trespass, that's entirely your desperate fabrication. There was no sexual assault, except perhaps by the staffer.

The server didn't have psychic powers or a time machine

More straw.

Its a quote from a poster here

Irrelevant and an attempt to dodge and distract.

Its relevant to the claim that this was somehow a "public business" and the owners had no right to gatekeep

Strawman.

Again, a strawman of what argument?

Irrelevant. There was no trespass

The server didn't have psychic powers or a time machine

Oh it is evidence of bigotry.

Since I doubt the server posts on this board you'll have to explain this one

 

[Manger Douse]

The ability to not be a weirdo who harasses women was also lacking.

You can't gatekeep without harassment

 

[Manger Douse]

A distinction without difference with the goal being the same: To harass a woman under a flimsy and nonsensical pretense.

A distinction with a difference - in one the server thinks a man is trespassing in a woman's safe space and in the other the server thinks a woman isn't dressed femininely enough

Just not this woman, whose safe space you condone taking away.

This woman was caught in the crosshairs of the trans rights movement that condones taking all women's safe spaces away

 

[johnny karate]

You can't gatekeep without harassment

It is amazing to see someone so proudly support the harassment of women. It’s almost gleeful.

 

[johnny karate]

A distinction with a difference - in one the server thinks a man is trespassing in a woman's safe space and in the other the server thinks a woman isn't dressed femininely enough

In both, the server is a creep who harassed a woman who was minding her own business and not bothering anyone.

This woman was caught in the crosshairs of the trans rights movement that condones taking all women's safe spaces away

A statement made without the slightest bit of irony about a scenario in which the only threat to women’s safe spaces are anti-trans freaks and their demented cheerleaders.

 

[plague311]

What's more likely? What is the more plausible beginning of this?
A, Server thought they saw a man go into the bathroom
B. Server thought they saw a women go into the bathroom but decided act like they saw a man?
There is a third option, some patron complained about the man in the women's room and server just assumed the were telling the truth.
If I understand Plague, B is more likely?

Well, you don't understand. Whether the server thought Gerika was a man or a woman there were a dozen better ways to manage this situation that don't involve harassing a teenager. All of which have been stated in this thread from johnny karate, or P.J. or Thermal or myself.

This server picked the most confrontational way to handle the situation and failed at every single step. All of them. All of the steps. The difference between you\Manger and myself and others is you guys think it's justified for the server to act the way she did. The rest of us don't.

Gerika's story is.
A. the Server "pounded on the door" while saying "the man has to get out.
B. Gerika came out of the stall and said, "I'm a lady"
C. The server said you have to get out now.
D. Gerika unzipped her hoody to show her breast. (I unfairly characterized it as flashing her titties.)

As you go on to show in another post, that's not the entirety of the story. The reason that Gerika claims to have shown her developed chest is because the server was requiring her to prove that she is a female. and was essentially trapping her in the bathroom. With only a few ways to do that Gerika chose to expose herself. That's the sickening part, and the claim isn't only in the daily mail, it's in other sources I've read as well. And yes, you've both victim blamed, and downplayed the impact it had on Gerika, with the "flashing her titties" being only one obnoxious example. It seems like you've almost gone out of your way to victim blame in this case.

The only thing the server can be said to have done that is out of line, is pushing it once Gerika said she was a lady. Depending on how it was said, it could have sounded like get the ◊◊◊◊ out or please get out. Wasn't there, I don't know. Others who weren't there are more certain.

Yes...that's the only thing that the server did that was out of line /eyeroll.

It's not the pounding on the door while someone is peeing, it's not the cornering a customer in the bathroom, it's not being super aggressive about something that could easily have been avoided. It was the part where she made her prove it that's the only thing. Spot on analysis again.

Now. There is a version of that were Gerika has no fault in it.

What the ◊◊◊◊ does this mean? lol. In what version did Gerika have fault? I mean that seriously.

There's version where Gerika was fed up with this sort of thing, which she says has happened before and overreacted. She's obviously pissed about it or we wouldn't have heard about it. There is a version where the server was just being a dick.

I wouldn't say she's "obviously pissed about it". I'd say she's probably hurt, and a bit offended. I think it's asinine you keep saying she overreacted when she obviously didn't. She didn't make a huge scene, like the server. She didn't become confrontational, like the server. She didn't call the police, or scream at anyone. I think she managed it pretty damn well. She finished her business and filed a complaint, but that's how you people are. If she makes any noise at all then she's "overreacting" or "obviously pissed", etc. Not the server though! She was perfectly fine!

The only difference between those three versions is tone and who was more pissed but we only have one witness.

Right, one that you steadfastly refuse to believe.

Plague, you've said that you've never heard of this sort of thing happening. You know who has? Gerika and me. In my case it was a guy who followed a woman into a women's restroom. If he had been a women, well my coworker would have really had egg on her face.

I've seen men go into women's bathrooms. I've seen women go into men's bathrooms. I've seen men and women have sex in the bathroom. I've seen two men have sex in the bathroom. I was a server, bartender, restaurant manager, and a cab driver. I assure you've I've seen more ◊◊◊◊ on accident than you have on purpose over my years.

Why I said that is because I've never seen a server who wasn't positive about a situation take it upon themselves to confront someone about using a bathroom without speaking to management or being God damn positive that they were right. Ever. I've had, and even instructed, servers to go in and wash their hands, or use the bathroom to scout out the situation. I've never seen a server pound on a bathroom door and confront a customer without any evidence at all that anything nefarious is happening.

That's new, because it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid ass thing to do.

 

[plague311]

If you saw someone on their way to commit abuse you would challenge them their and then, not wait until the cops came, the crime was committed and the perpetrator fled

It's funny you use this as an example because it actually fits.

How would I know if they were "on their way to commit abuse"? What would I use to determine that? There is no real way for me to determine that because, as you said, I can't see the future, right? You've used that, repeatedly, to excuse the server of their ◊◊◊◊◊◊ behavior, but, as this is your own example, you can see how poorly it works. Would I confront them because they're walking to their house in a terrible mood? If they have a weapon? What would I use to rationalize confronting a person I don't know, have never seen, am not familiar with, and don't know their intentions?

Answer, I wouldn't. You might, and you'd get arrested for it, but you might.

 

[theprestige]

Ah, but women have to be harassed by random, self-appointed, gatekeepers of toilet facilities in order that insufficiency female women don't use the toilets unchallenged.

That's always been the case. The only change is that now women are supposed to be the bad guys for doing what they've always done.

 

[ahhell]

Well, you don't understand. Whether the server thought Gerika was a man or a woman there were a dozen better ways to manage this situation that don't involve harassing a teenager. All of which have been stated in this thread from johnny karate, or P.J. or Thermal or myself.

This server picked the most confrontational way to handle the situation and failed at every single step. All of them. All of the steps. The difference between you\Manger and myself and others is you guys think it's justified for the server to act the way she did. The rest of us don't.


As you go on to show in another post, that's not the entirety of the story. The reason that Gerika claims to have shown her developed chest is because the server was requiring her to prove that she is a female. and was essentially trapping her in the bathroom. With only a few ways to do that Gerika chose to expose herself. That's the sickening part, and the claim isn't only in the daily mail, it's in other sources I've read as well. And yes, you've both victim blamed, and downplayed the impact it had on Gerika, with the "flashing her titties" being only one obnoxious example. It seems like you've almost gone out of your way to victim blame in this case.


Yes...that's the only thing that the server did that was out of line /eyeroll.

It's not the pounding on the door while someone is peeing, it's not the cornering a customer in the bathroom, it's not being super aggressive about something that could easily have been avoided. It was the part where she made her prove it that's the only thing. Spot on analysis again.


What the ◊◊◊◊ does this mean? lol. In what version did Gerika have fault? I mean that seriously.


I wouldn't say she's "obviously pissed about it". I'd say she's probably hurt, and a bit offended. I think it's asinine you keep saying she overreacted when she obviously didn't. She didn't make a huge scene, like the server. She didn't become confrontational, like the server. She didn't call the police, or scream at anyone. I think she managed it pretty damn well. She finished her business and filed a complaint, but that's how you people are. If she makes any noise at all then she's "overreacting" or "obviously pissed", etc. Not the server though! She was perfectly fine!


Right, one that you steadfastly refuse to believe.


I've seen men go into women's bathrooms. I've seen women go into men's bathrooms. I've seen men and women have sex in the bathroom. I've seen two men have sex in the bathroom. I was a server, bartender, restaurant manager, and a cab driver. I assure you've I'seen more ◊◊◊◊ on accident than you have on purpose over my years.

Why I said that is because I've never seen a server who wasn't positive about a situation take it upon themsevles to contront someone about using a bathroom without speaking to management or being God damn positive that they were right. Ever. I've had, and even instructed, servers to go in and wash their hands, or use the bathroom to scout out the situation. I've never seen a server pound on a bathroom door and contront a customer without any evidence at all that anything nefarious is happening.

That's new, because it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid ass thing to do.

Can't help but notice you didn't quote the bit where I'd found another version of the story that made the server seem more unhinged.

I've seen two version. One that makes it seem like Gerika overreacted and one where it seems like the server overreacted. Which, is my entire point. We don't actually know what happened. We have one side of the story and one version of that side, I'd bet totally on Gerika's side and the other, I'd be more on the server's side.

And Gerika could be lying or just mischaracterizing the events based on her subjective experience. We don't know, I'll wait for it play out rather than post on a forum and immediately assume it as it seems.

Why I said that is because I've never seen a server who wasn't positive about a situation take it upon themsevles to contront someone about using a bathroom without speaking to management or being God damn positive that they were right. Ever. I've had, and even instructed, servers to go in and wash their hands, or use the bathroom to scout out the situation. I've never seen a server pound on a bathroom door and contront a customer without any evidence at all that anything nefarious is happening.

You haven't seen it so it must not ever happen. And you are making assumptions about what caused the situation in the first place. I customer might have complained, a manager might have directed the server. We have only Gerika's story which means we have really have no idea what happen outside of the bathroom.

Please note the might's and ors and possibles in my posts. I have always been saying, we only have one side of a story and don't even have a second witness account. This is similar to the stories about someone writing a nasty note on a receipt for the server. Literally no idea how those notes got there or who put them there.

 

[plague311]

Can't help but notice you didn't quote the bit where I'd found another version of the story that made the server seem more unhinged.

I literally referenced it in my post. I pointed to the fact that you made an ETA at the end. Why did you want me to quote it? I acknowledge it and felt like that was enough.

I've seen two version. One that makes it seem like Gerika overreacted and one where it seems like the server overreacted. Which, is my entire point. We don't actually know what happened. We have one side of the story and one version of that side, I'd bet totally on Gerika's side and the other, I'd be more on the server's side.

Yes, I understand, I'm not confused at what you're saying. My point is that there is no scenario I can think of that should result in a server confronting a customer about using a bathroom with no actual evidence that the customer has done anything wrong. That's not just extremely stupid, it's the worst customer service you can ever provide. It goes against everything in the customer service book of serving customers. It's both stupid and wrong.

And Gerika could be lying or just mischaracterizing the events based on her subjective experience. We don't know, I'll wait for it play out rather than post on a forum and immediately assume it as it seems.

Right, you'll immediately post on a forum blaming the victim periodically by saying she "overreacted" (again with absolutely nothing to support it at all), demean her by saying such overreaction caused her to "flash her titties" but then jump right back up on that high horse of "I'm not taking a side until more evidence comes out, I'm above such things". Then why ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ participate in the thread at all? Just to tell us all how you're "not taking a side"? Neat, moving on.

You haven't seen it so it must not ever happen.

I said I'd never seen it, I never implied it never happens. If you've seen servers going into bathrooms, pounding on doors and accusing women of being men then that must have been super fun for you. You must have worked in some places with terrible customer service and dog ◊◊◊◊ management that allowed that to take place.

And you are making assumptions about what caused the situation in the first place. I customer might have complained, a manager might have directed the server. We have only Gerika's story which means we have really have no idea what happen outside of the bathroom.

Even IF a customer complained that doesn't mean you confront the customer while they're using the bathroom. That's ridiculous in and of itself. If a manager told the server, "Go in, pound on the door and verify that the person in there isn't a man" then he should be fired too. Is that better?

Yes, you can stop saying we only have Gerika's half of the story. You've said that a million times now and it can't possibly be more obvious that you're totally not taking a side, and you don't believe what Gerika has said because....you're totally not taking a side on a internet forum because....you're totally above taking sides before the whole story comes out because...you don't do that. Everyone gets it, we all understand.

Please note the might's and ors and possibles in my posts. I have always been saying, we only have one side of a story and don't even have a second witness account.

No kidding? I don't remember you saying this, can you point to a post where you've said this? /sarcasm

Why would you have a second eyewitness account? That's literally the point that half of us have been making. If there was no one else in the bathroom then why would a server aggressively confront someone about being in the bathroom as well as why would Manger insist that someone could been assaulted. Also, who reported Gerika in this situation since we don't have a second account?

You view there not being a second witness as a reason to doubt Gerika. I view it as part of the reason she was harassed, no one else would see it. That's why Manger complaining about it is so ironic. Manger is so up-in-arms about gatekeeping a bathroom that they're condoning a female being harassed in a place she's supposed to be safe.

This is similar to the stories about someone writing a nasty note on a receipt for the server. Literally no idea how those notes got there or who put them there.

Except we have the victim's account who, by all measures, is not overreacting or trying to get people in trouble. She isn't filing lawsuits, she isn't filing police reports, she just reported harassment to the people that handle it. That's not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ good enough for you guys though, is it? Hell, next you'll be telling me that since she isn't cash chasing that's evidence that she wasn't harassed.

 

[ahhell]

I will add one more thing and probably leave. What I am really trying to say is that eyewitnesses suck and are usually unreliable. All we have her is one eyewitness. So, I will wait and see before passing judgement. To the extent I have appeared to pass judgement on Gerika, that was a mistake on my part. She's human so she's therefore not a reliable witness but other than that, I don't know and have no idea about her and the employee.

All I know is she is human and thus an unreliable witness.

 

[ahhell]

I will be moderately surprised if there isn't more to this story than we know now. We have one side of the story and that side makes the other side look pretty bad.

The post where I said, we have one side of the story. As to why that matter's see post 295.

Even the aggressively confronting thing. It's absolutely possible that the one witness perceived aggressiveness where that wasn't intended. Stuff like that happens all the time.

Edited by Darat: 

Rule 11 breach removed.

 

[Thermal]

Gerika Mudra, in her own words, giving some more detail. She seems, as plague311 opines, more interested in public awareness than fattening her coffers. Anyone with a Facebook account could probably track down the original posts Gerika's mom put out:

Opinion | What happened to me at Buffalo Wild Wings was wrong. That’s why I’m speaking out.

I’m used to being stared at or whispered about in bathrooms and other spaces. It has happened more times than I can count. But this was different.

www.msnbc.com

 

[plague311]

Gerika Mudra, in her own words, giving some more detail. She seems, as plague311 opines, more interested in public awareness than fattening her coffers. Anyone with a Facebook account could probably track down the original posts Gerika's mom put out:

Opinion | What happened to me at Buffalo Wild Wings was wrong. That’s why I’m speaking out.

I’m used to being stared at or whispered about in bathrooms and other spaces. It has happened more times than I can count. But this was different.

www.msnbc.com

I read that article late yesterday as well. It links back to an older article from People, and it coincides with all of the other articles I've read. If she's lying then she's doing it just for the sake of lying. Lets face, it she knows the server's name and could blast it out at any time. There are so many things she could do if she was attention seeking\cash grabbing.

As a kind of aside, that article does make clear that Gerika didn't "expose" anything, as the title of the thread suggests, in that she had a shirt on under her zip up.

 

[johnny karate]

That's always been the case. The only change is that now women are supposed to be the bad guys for doing what they've always done.

What a weird way to condone the harassment of women.

 

[johnny karate]

I will add one more thing and probably leave. What I am really trying to say is that eyewitnesses suck and are usually unreliable. All we have her is one eyewitness. So, I will wait and see before passing judgement. To the extent I have appeared to pass judgement on Gerika, that was a mistake on my part. She's human so she's therefore not a reliable witness but other than that, I don't know and have no idea about her and the employee.

All I know is she is human and thus an unreliable witness.

To her own experience? I don't know how much of what is alleged to have happened is true, but it's weird to treat this woman like a third-party observer to a thing that happened directly to her. It's even weirder to use it as an excuse to justify harassment.

 

[jimbob]

Putting this thread on moderated status *AGAIN*

Can you all try identifying as civil adults, please?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

edit

Wrong thread, doh

 

[catsmate]

The post where I said, we have one side of the story. As to why that matter's see post 295.

Even the aggressively confronting thing. It's absolutely possible that the one witness perceived aggressiveness where that wasn't intended. Stuff like that happens all the time.

Edited by Darat: 

Rule 11 breach removed.

You're continually attempting to minimise the incident; initially claiming that there a second side that we'll hear Real Soon Now, and now asserting that the behaviour of the staffer has been misconstrued. Why?

 

[catsmate]

I read that article late yesterday as well. It links back to an older article from People, and it coincides with all of the other articles I've read. If she's lying then she's doing it just for the sake of lying. Lets face, it she knows the server's name and could blast it out at any time. There are so many things she could do if she was attention seeking\cash grabbing.

If anything comparable had happened to those on the right wing the staffer would be in hiding from the death threats.

As a kind of aside, that article does make clear that Gerika didn't "expose" anything, as the title of the thread suggests, in that she had a shirt on under her zip up.

I assumed this was already mentioned, but I could be wrong.

 

[ahhell]

You're continually attempting to minimise the incident; initially claiming that there a second side that we'll hear Real Soon Now, and now asserting that the behaviour of the staffer has been misconstrued. Why?

Why, because that's how people are. Pretty much anything involving two people is a Rashomon situation. With rare exception, folks don't start things by thinking, "I'm going to be a jerk". So, I assume the employee has some reason they did what they did that isn't, "I'm going to be a jerk" We have no idea what that was. We have no idea what happened prior to the employee entering the bathroom and in reality, we have only a notion of what happened after based on one person's interpretation.

Honestly, I think it's the basics of skepticism. Memory is faulty for all people; our perceptions are faulty too. There are parts of the story we know that I think are fairly mundane and very likely to have happened as reported there others that I find unlikely. That someone told a person they thought was a man to get out of the women's bathroom, that seems fairly likely. That that person then prevented the accused man from leaving, seems odd. Why did the employee start this in the first place? Did they see someone in a hoody that looked like a man go into the bathroom or did a customer complain that they had?

What I started with is that I will withhold judgement because there is probably more to this than we know. I stand by that. If I read a story about a transwoman harassing a server at a Bennigan's bathroom, I'd like to think I'll respond the same way.

ETA: I've also been in similar situations in customer service. Saying something I thought was fairly benign and having a customer start yelling at me. That happens, folks having a bad day react badly to things they wouldn't otherwise.

 

[catsmate]

Why, because that's how people are. Pretty much anything involving two people is a Rashomon situation. With rare exception, folks don't start things by thinking, "I'm going to be a jerk". So, I assume the employee has some reason they did what they did that isn't, "I'm going to be a jerk" We have no idea what that was. We have no idea what happened prior to the employee entering the bathroom and in reality, we have only a notion of what happened after based on one person's interpretation.

Honestly, I think it's the basics of skepticism. Memory is faulty for all people; our perceptions are faulty too. There are parts of the story we know that I think are fairly mundane and very likely to have happened as reported there others that I find unlikely. That someone told a person they thought was a man to get out of the women's bathroom, that seems fairly likely. That that person then prevented the accused man from leaving, seems odd. Why did the employee start this in the first place? Did they see someone in a hoody that looked like a man go into the bathroom or did a customer complain that they had?

What I started with is that I will withhold judgement because there is probably more to this than we know. I stand by that. If I read a story about a transwoman harassing a server at a Bennigan's bathroom, I'd like to think I'll respond the same way.

ETA: I've also been in similar situations in customer service. Saying something I thought was fairly benign and having a customer start yelling at me. That happens, folks having a bad day react badly to things they wouldn't otherwise.

So where is the "other point of view" in this case, other than in your imagination? Nothing has emerged to alter the perspective of events initially stated. You give the impression of someone desperate to belt the events as stated didn't happen.

 

[ahhell]

So where is the "other point of view" in this case, other than in your imagination? Nothing has emerged to alter the perspective of events initially stated. You give the impression of someone desperate to belt the events as stated didn't happen.

Not the impression I meant to give. There were at least two people involved, therefore there are at least to perspectives on what happened and why.

I honestly am surprised that so many folks are so quick to assume that one person's story must be exactly what happened.

 

[plague311]

Not the impression I meant to give. There were at least two people involved, therefore there are at least to perspectives on what happened and why.

I honestly am surprised that so many folks are so quick to assume that one person's story must be exactly what happened.

Because we have absolutely no reason to think she's lying, given what we know. She isn't asking anyone for money, she isn't being overly dramatic, she isn't trying to blast out anyone's name or get anyone canceled.

From everything we know she seems like a girl who has had her fill of this happening and is reporting the issue to the relevant authorities. That you're questioning her, have been derogatory towards her, and have implied that she's being dramatic is very telling.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I can think of many situations involving two people where one is simply and unambiguously 'in the wrong' regardless of perspective.

 

[johnny karate]

Not the impression I meant to give. There were at least two people involved, therefore there are at least to perspectives on what happened and why.

I honestly am surprised that so many folks are so quick to assume that one person's story must be exactly what happened.

The only two options are that you think she made the whole thing up or you that think it's appropriate to harass women as long as it's done politely.

I'm curious to know which one you're arguing.