Lesbian mistaken for trans woman in woman's bathroom in Arizona

[Christinapple]

https://www.advocate.com/news/lesbian-mistaken-transgender-arizona-walmart

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/masculine-looking-cis-woman-confronted-by-cops-in-walmart-restroom-kalaya-morton-demands-justice-video/ar-AA1AdWpn

But I thought people "can always tell"?

It also led to the irony the only males in the bathroom were two male police officers who were notified by a store employee who mistakenly thought a male had entered the woman's toilets.

"In an alarming incident at a Tucson, Arizona Walmart, 19-year-old Kalaya Morton*, a Black cisgender lesbian, was confronted by two male sheriff’s deputies while using the women’s restroom, sparking outrage and a demand for accountability.
Morton, who identifies as masculine-presenting or a “stud,” recounted the humiliating encounter that occurred when a store employee erroneously assumed she was a transgender woman. The saga began innocuously enough: Morton had entered the restroom with her ex-girlfriend, who was kindly handing her a tampon— an act of friendship that, unfortunately, soon spiraled into something far more troubling. In an exclusive interview with The Advocate, Morton detailed her shock when the two deputies barged in, shining flashlights into the restroom stall.

“You have to get out of here. You have to come out. We need to talk to you.” Imagine trying to pee in peace, only to have the police storm in like it’s an episode of Cops: Restroom Edition.
“I’m still using the restroom. I’m sitting down, I’m peeing. What is the issue?,” Morton incredulously told the deputies as she sat there.
Now, while most people hope for a streamlined bathroom experience, Morton was treated more like a suspect than a bathroom user. The deputies apparently needed to crack the case of “Who Looks Like a Man in the Ladies’ Room,” a particularly absurd mystery, if you ask us."

Can I justify it? What do you mean by that? I can explain why they're there i.e. they're allowed ever since Elon Musk changed the rules on twitter content. There's loads of porn on twitter of all kinds, most of us don't see it though cos we don't go searching porn stars accounts and we don't regularly discuss genitals in explicit terms. Again, if you really are against porn being on twitter at all just don't use the site. There's plenty of other SM.

The dont look at the child sex offender flashing women and children in the womens changing room argument?

Or is it that the pro-trans twitter management who had decided to code in the delivery of sex act imagery to women discussing single sex space are to blame argument?

Did I say that?

No.

But excusing it as acceptable, or pretending it isn't happening, isn't the answer either. SO many posts on this thread appear to be saying it's OK if this happens because it's better than some women get abused than trans women enter a women's toilet.

As I said in my post, on MN alone I have been accused of being a man, of lying, of making it up.

So my point is, those who shout about "we're just supporting women" aren't supporting women. They are picking and choosing when they want to support women.

Yet again another thread where most of the arguments in favour of letting males use women's spaces boil down to: it's unkind to say no to men, so don't.

There's always been porn on Twitter (NOT saying that's right, as you say it's public and it's not really the place for it where anyone can stumble across it)
Don't really know why you're asking people to justify why it's there in the first place?
No, it shouldn't be but unfortunately it is.
The poster was explaining about algorithms and how they work, presumably not justifying porn on Twitter in any way?!

Rather more, in fact, based on incarceration rates for serious sexual offences, according to the MoJ.

As a subgroup of men - who are in general statistically a risk to women - they are even more of a risk from the pov of sexual offending.

Apologies that this thread has moved on, but I just wanted to go back to the initial post. I honestly do not understand the point. What is it? One woman got questioned so to remove all the safeguards for all? Never, ever question a man, even if he is very clearly male, because there is a minute chance it could be wrong?

We don’t and can’t make laws based on minuscule risks like this, because the harm it would be do to the majority far outstrips the harm of this risk. Miserable for the woman in question but the alternative would be to never confront anyone even if you know they shouldn’t be there and that’s just not feasible.

I’ve only skimmed so apologies if I’ve missed, but I’d like to know from an trans activist what their solution is, considering mixed sex are just more dangerous anyway?

And, aside from whether they should be there in the first place, if we can’t question men anymore doesn’t that also put those same transwomen at risk in the women’s toilets as the dangerous men they are avoiding in the men’s toilets can just follow them into the women’s? Who does not confronting obvious men benefit?

Did you miss the point where we mentioned this was historic. Over the past year this has not happened.

Just because you personally did not witness it doesn’t mean it did not happen. And just because the people you interact with didn’t do it doesn’t make it not an issue.

Stop telling victims of seeing unwanted sex acts that it was their fault.

I suggest nobody shares links to their social media on here.

Especially when asked by posters who seem so fixated on genitals and determined to repeat these phrases as often as they can.

So my point is, those who shout about "we're just supporting women" aren't supporting women. They are picking and choosing when they want to support women.

It's a problem caused by men invading women's spaces. Not women on mumsnet. Why is it our issue what the occasional woman does? I'm not responsible for the actions of every woman in the world.

Exactly - (must have cross posted with you)
Twitter is an absolute cesspit since Musk took over.
I've never seen any porn, never tweeted anything about genitals, never get any of that content.
I do see lots of racist abuse though as I've been known to comment back at racist arseholes - unfortunately Twitter now thinks I like that kind of content or something as I've engaged with it before so keeps pushing me more of it 😡🙄

I gather the idea is that women have all the rights they need: the right to remain silent.

Do a dive into sexual assaults and rapes in toilets in the UK over the last 10 years. Or 15 years.

Firstly, there has been no increase in numbers - which you would have expected if trans women were the problem.

Secondly. Men walk into women's toilets and sexually assault and rape. Banning trans women from women's toilets won't actually stop this.
Men pretending to cleaners or plumbers. Men hanging around nearby till a woman is in there alone.

There is A LOT we need to do to make women safer. But none of it will happen when the only focus is on trans women.

Nope I'm not a TRA just because I happen to be disgareeing with PP or pointing out a fact. This kind of black and white thinking you have of people on my side / TRAs sounds like cult thinking.

Oh good grief, way to miss the point lol
Although you do have a point about sharing personal social media accounts, don't think that's a good idea.

There is A LOT we need to do to make women safer. But none of it will happen when the only focus is on trans women

The focus is on ALL MEN. They just need to stay out of women's spaces.

Very good point.

I'm sorry I'm using the correct term and you find that more offensive than PP using sexualised words for genitals to describe the porn they're watching. Is there another way you'd like me to word it to explain how they're outing their SM content preferences ?

No, it isn't. It is women judging other women on their attractiveness. None of the women I spoke about are masculine. But all 3 are tall. None are "big", or broad. None are larger than a size 12. All three have largish breasts for their frame.
But they're not your standard image of beauty. They were 100% judged on their beauty.

If you think it is acceptable for awful, horrible minor celebs to try and ruin a woman's life, to try and cause pain to her children, then you are not supportive of women.

Yes, I'm not sure how you're supposed to point out stuff being discussed by "GC"s by not naming the words or actions in the first place

Did @Bunny44 ever come back to answer your question @Helleofabore ?

it seems that despite accusing us of not liking questions Bunny is not a fan of answering them!

To be fair if you reread my request I didn't ask anyone to share their account. I said feel free to link the feminist threads you're on that are being bombarded by trans porn, because surely they won't at all be full of accounts regularly engaging in discussion of trans peoples bodies in sexualised language and they won't be accounts 100% dedicated to the discussion of trans people either. There'll be nothing to suggest to the algorithm they are interested in trans people's bodies right? So link them.

No it isn't, because NO ONE has even mentioned the attacks by men simply walking into the toilets. The only people talked about on here, on twitter, or anywhere are trans women.

If you think it is acceptable for awful, horrible minor celebs to try and ruin a woman's life, to try and cause pain to her children, then you are not supportive of women.

I have no idea what you're talking about. So it doesn't apply to me. HTH.

Why should we be suprised that abusive people are abusive?

The doxing and that type of videos are abuse.
And the Z lister was engaging in a abusive control.

This is why imo is better for everyone if the minimum social expectation is that people can mantain at least a veneer of civility.

It was intresting to see the A list celebs who chose their industry and fame who justified TRA turning up at JKR home. They were unable to see how damaging their postion was to society and social interactions as a whole. And as most people can accurately sex another human in real life, their decision to approve a breach of the social contract causes harm to the group they claim to be trying to protect.

This encourages the people who lack the ability to regulate or place limits on their actions or who justify the harm under s/he was asking for it.