Lawsuit, Bar vs. TG/TS/CD (Scottsdale, AZ)

[cosmolovesph]

Bar vs. transgendered: AG looks into complaint

Some may be interested in this article..

[Marla S]

That's a tricky subject.

TG discrimination vs. GGs feeling comfortable and save.

Actually TG folks certainly are no peepers, but the GGs would have to know that and to be convinced by it. It's hard for me to see how this could be achieved.

I think CDs should use the men's restroom and TS the women's one. But how to prove what you are ?
The need to prove it is discrimination by itself !

[KandisTX]

One thing that many of the posting commenters have stated "It is the owner/managers right to refuse service to anyone". HOWEVER, how were these sisters of ours discovered? Were they facing the wrong way in the stalls? Were they congregating in there and talking in their masculine voices? We are only getting partial details here.

I know here in Houston, there used to be a club called "The Palm Beach Club". The TG community always frequented there and there were no problems as t-gurls were using both the mens and womens restrooms. I personally used the mens room as there was less wait, but the thing is, by all rights, you should be using the restroom that is for your physical gender, not that which you are trying to portray. If this particular bar is not a GLBT type of bar, then these gurls should be following the rules, or at least doing a better job of passing in order to avoid this type of situation.

I know this post may sound somewhat harsh, but gurls, we have to remember that in many instances we are in the minority and as we all know, majority rules. I hope it all works out for them, but they should also consider finding a more accepting place to go where they will not be subject to such persecution.

Kandis

[Kroma]

Sadly, society is held to the lowest common denominator. No matter how well intentioned we might be, those who's actions are harmful and deviant will always be the standard to which laws are set.

I'm also quite surprised as to where this has taken place. After all, Sheriff Joe has all his inmates wearing pink, and the people love it. You'd think the trend might have spread and become a little more accepted by now.

[Marcie Sexton]

I think I'll set back and let the smoke clear...given there are legit points to both sides, I did see one thing that would settle every thing, build another bath room...if business is that good why couldn't/wouldn't he be receptive to that idea...more business =$$$

[gennee]

[SIZE="2"]I have thought about the bathroom issue in public places. I haven't had to deal with it yet but it's coming. There are unisex bathrooms in many places here. The way I see it when you gotta, go you gotta go.


Gennee[/SIZE]

[ColleenCD]

This appears to be more favorable to the bar owner. He is within his rights and is not required to install a third/unisex restroom. The discrimination apsect is hard to prove without asistance of judge and jury. It would be wise if the gurls found another watering hole where they could wet their whistle and check their lip gloss with GG's and club owners support.

Colleen

[Stephenie S]

I believe you have to use the bathroom of the gender you are presenting as. There are factors we do not know about this case. How were the girls creating a problem for the GG patrons? Just using the BR seems fine to me. How can that be creating a problem for anyone else? But were they creating any kind of disturbance? It seems that there may be unanswered questions here. Surely we shouldn't be using the men's when all decked out. If we did, we might find ourselves all "decked" out. LOL.

Stephenie

[BarbaraTalbot]

This is local for us. The comments in the reader comment part were outrageous!!

People referring to CD's as sexual deviants, yet this bar no doubt from where it is would on occasion have gay sex in the male bathroom, with no thought to it maybe making it "uncomfortable" for male patrons, yet the thought that a few female patrons objected to the CD's in the womans, while the bar OWNER states that his bathroom would be unsafe for a CD in the male bathroom. He doesn't have security?

A woman posted that she would worry that a guy would put on a dress, go to a crowded skank bar for the express purpose of sneaking into the womans to rape somebody, presumedly in front of the long line waiting to get in.

One states that a guy "prancing in" and "waggling it around" is a sex offender and needs to be registered as a sex offender (which in AZ is for life)

[Katrina]

...but the thing is, by all rights, you should be using the restroom that is for your physical gender, not that which you are trying to portray. If this particular bar is not a GLBT type of bar, then these gurls should be following the rules, or at least doing a better job of passing in order to avoid this type of situation.

Kandis,
I'm female on the inside and male on the outside...which restroom do I use???? Seriously. I am a firm believer that you should use the restroom of the gender you are presenting. These CDers face serious danger walking into the men's room. And for some of us girls, "doing a better job of passing" is not necessarily an option.

[Stlalice]

There is always the option to tell everyone to grow up and declare all the restrooms on the premises to be unisex. This is common at events with large transgender/LGBT attendance. Personally, I've never had a problem when using the womens facilities - go in do what you have to do and leave. Unfortunately there has been enough publicity about guys dressing and hanging out trying to get "up skirt" photos with everything from cell phone cameras to mini camcorders that many women are a little bit paranoid about the potential for this type of activity. As usual it is the actions of a few that cause problems for all of us.

[Lori SC]

I found the comments very interesting. (I read about 5 pages worth).

Sure, there were some that I found offensive. But really! What would you expect? You know there are a lot of people out there who hate anything that is different than them.

But what was really positive was the number of people who found it acceptable to use either bathroom, or just didn't care. The "haters" were in the minority. The people who found it OK to use the ladies room, or didn't care were in the majority.

Thats good news girls, really good news. THink about it.

Hugs, Lori

[Miss Petra]

I found this so well written I copied it for all of us to read:

posted by Lillth:

Hey. I was the other patron that was denied entry to the club that night. This is what it comes down to- you are going have to make a choice about how we are treated and stick to it. Are you sure you want to deny me access to all of these places of buisness, clubs, restaurnats, libraries, etc..??? You already have it in place so getting work or keeping a job is near impossible. If that is REALLY how you feel then make me tax exempt. That's right, stop charging me taxes. If I can not have access to and be able to move freely about the country like you do then I shouldn't have to pay taxes that go for infrastructure. You can go ahead and just wipe away all of my debt as well, because you are making it impossible for me to make a living. It's "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". These are not my rights- not where some of you are concerned. How many transexuals have committed rape and/or murders in restrooms in the last 10 years?? Zero. And if you took the time to actually educate yourselves you would know that for most transexuals urinating is the only thing that appendage can do any more. This is from my friend tara in a simular debate: (Disclaimer: I am transgendered, so I'm mainly chiming in here because it's my ox being gored in this debate. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.) (original argument) "I think the point is, many women do not want a male in their restrooms. Public restrooms does not mean that all are welcome. In a public restroom, I as a female are certainly *not* welcome to walk into a men's restroom." (her response)The problem with that line of thinking is, transexuals don't consider themselves male. Up until about 10 years ago, the medical community considered this to be a psychological problem. A problem with no known cure, to be certain, but the thinking was that somebody born with male genitals who thought themselves to be female was clearly delusional. We now know from a preponderance of evidence, including brain autopsies, that this is simply not the case. Brains have sexual genders! A male brain and a female brain are different, and this difference is vastly more important than sexual organs to the way people see themselves. Gender identity is something which is hard-wired into each and every one of us while we are still in the womb. If you were to lose the lower half of your body, including your reproductive organs, in a car crash, would you stop thinking of yourself as a woman? Of course not. "Female" is not just a classification of you based on whether you can make babies or not, it's part of who you are. The same is the case with transexuals, except a transexual has the rare misfortune of a brain of one sex, and sexual organs of the other. In that regard, they are inter-sexed. As far as they are concerned, their male gonads (and the resulting development of the body) are a BIRTH DEFECT, and the latest research, for the most part, backs up that assertion. These unfortunate creatures have grown up *knowing* that their bodies are wrong for their true gender, and many have endured a great deal of misery because of it. But aside from the debate on whether a transexual is a "real" woman or not, there's another important point to consider: 60% of visible trangendered people are victimized by a violent hate crime. Worse yet, 8.5% of male-to-female transexuals die by murder, vs. 0.0055% of the general population. Think about that. If you are transexual, you face almost a 1-in-10 chance of being murdered! Don't even get me started on the sexual assault statistics! For somebody who looks like a man in a dress, walking in to a men's room, a small unmonitored room where there may be one or more men you don't know, is about as smart as playing russian roulette with five bullets loaded. That is why I use the women's room unless I can find a private unisex bathroom somewhere nearby. It's a no-brainer, from my point of view. The risk of making some stranger angry or nervous and possibly even getting myself arrested if far, far preferable to facing the risk of getting assaulted, raped, or murdered by some angry redneck. Bottom line: I don't feel safe in men's rooms, I don't belong in them, and I'm not going to use them no matter what you or anybody else says. It's sad that I need to take the chance on upsetting people like you just to perform the very basic human function of using a toilet, and I'm sorry if you regard me as a "man" intruding upon "your" public bathroom, but please resist the urge to make a big deal out of it. Grant me that much dignity at least, and we can both go on with our lives. I assure you that I won't linger in there any longer than I absolutely must.

[Miss Petra]

So I continue reading the comments kinda like a soap opera of the banter back n forth most with no merit but some good comments for and against then Lilith completly blows it by posting this: (This does not help her cause or any gender cause & she was flamed for this)

Yeah, Lilith here. The one that supposedly started this whole thing. When I was in Anderson's I asked the assistent manager who was Justin at the time, which restroom he prefered me to use. His response was "Which ever one makes you comfortable". I asked because I know there are people out there like yourselves who are not comfortable with things that are different. One of the posters here was even affraid of getting to drunk and being taken advantage of by "one of us". (maybe that is actually his fantasy??) One cromagnon wants to exterminate all of us??? I suggest he gets off the computer, drag his hairy knuckles out into the kitchen, get himself another Pabst and a fresh bag of pork rinds and go out to the front porch and practice shooting the neighbor kids with his pellet gun. That's right kids, I asked and was given permission by the management!!!! The real story is that Anderson started to see more transexuals than he was comfortable with. Face it, for the 3 months I was going there it was pretty much a white club. There was occasionaly "nonwhite" patrons but for the most part Upper-middle-white. That may have changed since November. The bathroom issue is just a convinient ploy to get rid of people he is not comfortable with. Maybe even some of his other patrons complained because they were uncomfortable. I asked and things were just fine for 2 1/2 months- until more started to show up. And ironiclly so this is the definition of: fifth estate n. A class or group in society other than the nobility, the clergy, the middle class, and the press. Anderson being a rich land owner would I guess fall into the nobility classification (I think that refers to the upper class) And the commoners that patronise anderson's are middle class. So that would really make me the fifth estate- the ones that fall through the cracks. The ones not protected under the cover of some class in a class system. You have to keep in mind that Anderson's is a bar where the customers are regularly OVER served. This is very evident by the amount of accidents that occur at this place. One of my last nights in the place a very drunk girl fell off the little dancing stage and broke her leg so bad they had to put a titanium rod in it. I know this because her girl friend, who was hitting on me that nigh, told me in an email. The girl who broke her leg was one of the people that complained about the "trannies". Jealous girlfriend?? Perhaps. This is not the last of problems for Anderson I assure you. Bad things happen to bad people. Its all vibrational. Its my country just as much as it is yours!! I'll go where ever I (inappropriate term) will please.

[Sheri 4242]

Well, first, at this stage there isn't a lawsuit (at least not yet). What is hapening is that the state's Attorney General has been asked to render a "judicial opinion," and as part of that process, he/she is conducting some sort of evidentiary hearing if the article is correct.

Next, note that the quoted article said, "the Attorney General's Office cited a Utah case in which a judge wrote that "many women would be upset, embarrassed and even concerned for their safety if a man used a public restroom designated exclusively for women. Concerns about privacy, safety and propriety are the reason that gender-specific restrooms are universally accepted in our society."

LEGAL THOUGHT # ONE: I'll bet this is where this issue will be decided. In the U.S. (for our friends across the different ponds), "precedent" is major in deciding legal issues!!! Yes, precedent can be overcome, but, that said, precedent usually rules the day. In American jurisprudence, using this type of standard for deciding an issue is called "stare decisis" which means to "stand by by things previously decided." This is a hallmark doctrine of American law, the argument being that it should not be necessary to revisit the same points again and again in litigation, thus DO NOT disturb settled points!

LEGAL THOUGHT # TWO: I'll also bet that TWO PARTS of the cited Utah case will be central to the final AG opinion . . . I can already see the writing on the wall!!! What parts do I think will speciously rule the day??? "Concerns about privacy . . . and propriety." The safety issue would be difficult to sustain given the known statistics. But, by centering -- and speciously so IMHO -- on issues of privacy and propriety, and by applying stare decisis, the AG isn't going to issue an opinion to freely allow gender identity to decide what bathroom to use -- it is too easy to stay "publically and politically safe" by ruling that one should use the bathroom of their anatomical sex.

LEGAL THOUGHT # THREE: the AG's opinion is usually based in no small part on statements of fact and rationale, in addition to points of law. In the main, an AG's opinion is an interpretation, so it is subject to be submitted to a court (thankfully) b/c it is nothing more than an expression of judgement of one who is presumed to have special knowledge, and from that issues an understanding of the law based on the facts as known. It is NOT a final decision!!! That said, if a state's AG issues an opinion, it is going to be considered to have a great deal of weight and will be difficult (though not impossible) to prevail against such in court -- the very fact that a state AG has etered into an issue usually means he or she will remain active in subsequent court proceedings as a matter of upholding the opinion as that of the people of the state at-large.

This appears to be more favorable to the bar owner. He is within his rights and is not required to install a third/unisex restroom. The discrimination apsect is hard to prove without asistance of judge and jury. It would be wise if the gurls found another watering hole where they could wet their whistle and check their lip gloss with GG's and club owners support.

Colleen, just MHO, but even with judge and jury, if this issue goes to court, it is going to be difficult to win. I absolutely agree that the owner would provide his customers with a great service by providing a third, unisex bathroom. That said, the owner is under no obligation to do so, and I doubt a court would say otherwise.

MANY of you make impressive arguments that are full of common sense -- but looking at this in strictly legalistic terms, common sense isn't a factor I'm sorry to say.

A'hhhh -- to be back in Paris!!! My first shopping trip to one of Paris's largest department stores, I was astounded to see that the bathrooms wre unisex. Very private stalls, very open sinks.

Okay -- let the rest of the forum's legal membership weigh in! Did I miss anything?!!!?

[Tamera]

When I am dressed as a female, I do as the females do. And that is for both restrooms and dressing rooms. I have never been ousted yet.

But of course I go in and do what I went there for. I don't linger in for a long period of time. I do you the makeup mirror at times, but once again not for a long period of time.

I have talked to my friend who is a Police Officer and is Lesbian. She told me that there is no LAW in OHIO preventing you to use the restroom. But Management can ask you to leave.

Tamera

[Joy Carter]

Let the GG's have their place and we use our place. It's as simple as that. They have their modesty as well as their safety in mind on this subject. If the place is accepting and allow us it that's great. You have to respect others and how they feel.
As far as building another bathroom, that can run it some big dollars. Most small businesses are close to the bone on their money.

[Wendy me]

OK i can see a few points made .... sorry to say i have to side with the owner of the bar.... see the GG'S that see for what they know is a guy in womens clothing .....and not knowing all abought gender issues get freaked .... now if you were out to dinner with your wife or SO and she came back saying a guy was in the womens rest room in drab ..... might you freak some??? that what the GG'S see here.....

then it's a matter of cash flow .... excuse me GG'S but your a cash crop at a club ..... more GG's ='s more GM'S ='s more cash ..... and could putting a 3rd rest room for people with gender issues be profitable for the owner ???

sorry but we need more on teaching the people out there abought all this before we can just believe that at times our little group can expect every one out there to understand us......

[Charleen]

Sheri mentioned Paris and unisex RRs. The same was true in Luxumberg when I was there in the 70's. I can't see that happening here in the uptight USofA!

[Karren H]

Hey.... They could use the men's restroom!!! I have enfemme.... Big deal..

I still don't get the Utah case.... Said that "many women would be upset, embarrassed and even concerned for their safety if a man used a public restroom designated exclusively for women. Concerns about privacy, safety and propriety are the reason that gender-specific restrooms are universally accepted in our society." Then said "any male employee could dress as a woman, appear and act as a woman, and use the women's restrooms, showers and locker rooms."

???? So TG patrons can't use the ladies room but TG employees can??

Karren

[tall_brianna]

What a confused mess. I love the fact that the only legal precedent he could find was from Utah. lol. Our most backward state sets the course for a change. Maybe we can follow another of Utah's leads. I've only been there skiing a few times, but there use to be a law where you needed a "sponsor" to enter an establishment where alcohol was consumed. Maybe we should have to get GG sponsor's to go into the girls room. "Hi, I'm really a nice person and not a rapist or deviant. I do have a penis, but I'll set down or squat to go pee. Will you sponsor me for the girls room?"

I normally don't read the comments of these things because of the blood boiling effect it has. But you guys sucked me in. Actually most people were sympathetic albeit ignorant. Maybe there should just be two bathrooms - Cromagnon and Modern Human.

I know the GGs are a little put off by it and I think I know why. I think it's because most of us are still attracted to girls. And well, I guess they probably feel just as uncomfortable with "Butch Jane" - as one commenter called her. But the difference is that they have to tolerate Jane more so than John.

[Tree GG]

As a GG who has used a public restroom in the presence of CDs also using the restroom, my only complaint is that the line gets longer.

Modesty is over-rated (admittedly I have naturist-nudist tendencies that skew my opinion). In a closed stall environment, where's the danger of "exposing" anything to anyone? The GGs who complained to the bar-owner were afraid? OK, ignorance on their part.

The bar-owner creates business policy based on the threat of 2 women taking their business elsewhere? Not likely - even if they were regulars, a true customer service based business person would try to placate both sides of the issue. Save 2 customers by ejecting 4? Not good business math.

I see this as the bar-owner not wanting TGs in his establishment and the GGs are being used for his "higher ground" argument. Knight in shining armor mentality - pffft! Save me from liars, bigots and right-wing government, not a few CDs trying to take a leak.

[CharleneCD]

"the Attorney General's Office cited a Utah case in which a judge wrote that "many women would be upset, embarrassed and even concerned for their safety if a man used a public restroom designated exclusively for women. Concerns about privacy, safety and propriety are the reason that gender-specific restrooms are universally accepted in our society."

Actualy this opinion is flawed in being to gender specific. What about our concern for safety if forced to use the mens room. Anytime we walk dressed into a mens restroom we are at grave risk of being the victim of a hate crime

[Kitty Sue]

I think I am inclined to back up the GGs and the bar owner here. I have had no issues using the men's room. I think TS should be able to use female bathrooms but for the average CDer I do not think there is any need.

I have not felt any need to use the women's bathroom when out dressed. If I feel the situatation is that dangerous then why on earth am I there. Also I can always call the police.

[Sheri 4242]

Actualy this opinion is flawed in being to gender specific. What about our concern for safety if forced to use the mens room. Anytime we walk dressed into a mens restroom we are at grave risk of being the victim of a hate crime

First, so that you'll know I'm not arguing with you, I absolutely agree with your logic!!! Anecdotal evidence would back you up, too: As far as safety goes, someone crossdressed in a men's room would have much more to be concerned about, in re safety, than a GG would have from one of us using the women's bathroom.

Next, I do want to point out that you were commenting on an actual judicial ruling (IOW, it was the ruling of a court) and not on a legal opinion. Lawyers, judges, Attorney Generals, et al., write legal opinions all the time -- even law school students have to write legal opinions as part of their curriculumn. They are exactly what their name says, "opinions" -- usually authored by someone who supposedly has the requisite knowledge to issue such. (((The legal system isn't as closed as some think, either. I vividly recall private citizens -- who were not lawyers, but obviously had legal knowledge -- writing legal opinions in a couple of political cases before several different courts. They then submitted the opinions as part of a brief to the court. These were "amicus" briefs, which is short for "amicus curiae" or, in plain English "friend of the court." A person who is not party to a lawsuit, but who has a strong interest in the subject of a case, can file an amicus brief. )))

What is going to happen in the Arizona situation is that the AG is going to address an issue, and from that, render a judicial opinion. The Utah ruling was brought up b/c it is likely that the Arizona AG may apply stare decisis in forming his or her opinion since the Utah ruling is directly on point to the specific issue -- assuming the AG wants his/her opinion to fall within what would presumably be politically safe grounds. IOW, the AG may point to the Utah case as a "Leading Case," in that it established an important judicial precedent and should, therefore, be consistently followed. Nobody knows that this is what will happen, but it seems likely!!! That said, the AG's issued opinion will not be law, just his or her opinion of the law on a specific issue. If litigation occurs later, the opinion of the AG "may" be given significant weight. This might be why they are going for a legal opinion from the Arizona AG -- they might see a lawsuit looming and want an opinion they can point to as "supposedly" authoritative!!!