Threat of prosecution for questioning men in NYC “womens” toilets

I saw a similar sign in NYC. What bothers me about in the US more than the UK is that American toilet cubicles all have big gaps down the sides of the doors, they stop high up off the ground and are also quite low at the top. US public toilets are a bit more.. erm... public. Bad enough having the lack of privacy with same-sex people going around, never mind opposite sex regardless of what gender they think they are!

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-childmarriage-reform/child-brides-call-on-u-s-states-to-end-legal-rape-idUSKCN1MZ024

disturbing article.

Let's hope they don't bring any sword swallowers lol. I can just see the headlines of 'TERF beheaded by trans rights protester'!

Anyhoo. Child brides aside (I assume it’s mostly girls who are children) anyone know where WPUK meeting in London is tonight? PM me in case the crazies do decide to bring the circus to protest - yes they really did ask for people with circus skills. You know I’m not a circus person (shudder). I’m just nosey because I’ve seen photos from ‘inside’ and it looks massive! Loads of women (well there may be some men in there too).

Of course if people are legally marrying children in California then it's an issue!

Quite a few states where there is no minimum age for marriage.

I'd be interested to know whether it's actually a problem needing addressed in California or whether it's been left as is due to it not really being an issue.

Last time I checked it was still technically legal to shoot a Welshman on a Sunday inside the city walls of Chester – as long as it’s after midnight and with a crossbow. I also believe it's still illegal to eat mince pies on xmas day as nobody has yet repealed Cromwell's law from the 17th century.

Quite a few states where there is no minimum age for marriage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

(Including Progressive California where you can't get a bottle of beer below 21.)

A clear breach of the UN Right of the Child Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24, 28, 31, 32, and especially 34.

(on the part of the only nation on Earth not to ratify it.)

Wasn't aiming that last comment at you, Fekko. Looks like we cross posted.

I wish people wouldn't overexaggerate things as it tends to have the opposite effect in many instances. People read the actual story and then go "oh, it's not as bad as the title suggested."

I think the self-ID situation is enough of a legitimate concern that it doesn't need hyperbole.

Oh I see, yes (tiny screen). But if you can’t ask then you can’t attribute a motive - so I may look at a small kid in the queue and say ‘ahh aren’t they cute’ but a mum would feel uneasy if it’s Jimmy Saville in a skirt but not be able to say anything?

I don't think it says that, Fekko.

It's saying that if you abuse the privilege of using your chosen toilet you will be prosecuted.

I like the way the sign is 'you cant ask and if you do you are a criminal' not 'respect other people in the loo and if you are up to no good we will arrest your ass'

www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/feb/06/it-put-an-end-to-my-childhood-the-hidden-scandal-of-us-child-marriage

Not much older than me! Younger than my sisters...

anyway - I would have peed myself before Id read that whole sign.

Parental consent is needed in Alabama and Utah at age 14, and in Nebraska and Oregon, the age is 17. The ages for males and females to marry differs in some states. In New Hampshire, the ages at which you may get married with parental consent are 14 for males and 13 for females.

It wasnt all that long ago when girls could get married off in the US at 11. I remember reading an article about a woman who was married as a child - and she was about the same age as me!

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

So it's the people challenging a loo user who are the harassers? What happens if a man decides to "identify" as a woman in order to assault a woman in the loo? He can't be challenged?

It's utter misogynist madness. No-one cares about the safety of girls & women.

What about a blanket rule that users are forbidden to harass or assault other users?

anyone who abuses this policy to assault, harass, intimidate or otherwise interfere will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law

They will say that this is to protect women from predatory men - of course you could already prosecute them for the assaults they commit, and staring/intimidation will never be prosecuted anyway, we all know that.

I think that really this to threaten things like Man Friday protests though, who otherwise would get nothing more than coppers escorting them out whilst wondering what their job's come to.

Talking to an Américan gay friend about this the other day and expressing my concern about gender neutral toilets and changing rooms. As he has grandchildren I wondered about what he thinks about them being accessed by any old guy who feels like a woman. While defending this on the one hand he said that there is no way they would be allowed in a public facility on their own until they were at least 17. Which rather proves the point!

I'm waiting for certain posters to come along and tell us it's no big deal, you're all being hysterical, predators don't hang around toilets , your all just being mean, etc etc. Actually surprised they haven't popped along with their tuppence worth yet

Note the line at the bottom on the first image - "the policy does not provide the right to a member of the public to use a facility reserved for employees" - because some things need to be kept exclusive!

This just means that women are always going to have to accompany children to the toilets, aren't they? And when if something happens to an unaccompanied child it will be the mother who is blamed.

The same state where children as young as 14 can marry (I imagine most of them will be girls) with judicial consent. But hey, 'progressive' because males have the right to use women's bathrooms.

I’d presume that’s to prohibit homeless people from washing clothes in the sinks sadly. Obviously compassion is in limited supply. Enough for men who want access to women’s spaces but not the actual female users, nor any homeless people trying to keep clean whilst down on their luck.

I'd presume that too were this a sensible situation. But waiting for the trans woman who is triggered by a woman going about her business. Literal violence to flaunt her periods.

Obviously it'll be a turn on for some others..

I've got a solution!

Do away with mens and womens toilets altogether.

Put a sign on one door with a neutral, non-genderfree smiley face on one door for all the nice people who just want to use the loo.

Put a like, maybe a dirty raincoat on the other for the weirdos and perverts of all genders to use.

No weirdo or pervert would ever pretend to be a nice person and use the wrong loo.

Sorted!

This is the city that has a law forbidding employees to misgender customers or coworkers, punishment being a fine of up to $250,000.

I’d really like to see that fine imposed and then challenged in court.

IANAL but I’m not sure someone in the US could be prosecuted for challenging someone’s presence in the loo. We DO have free speech. A question isnt harassment.

And it’s certainly interesting that a city government known for liberal voters thinks it must, in order to further transactivism’s goals, enact illiberal laws that curtail free speech. It would seem the council don’t trust their own people to share their vision.