A female security guard working at a Washington, D.C. grocery store was arrested Monday afternoon for physically escorting a man out of the women’s restroom after he refused to leave because he identifies as a woman.

The shopper — a young, African-American male who identified himself as Ebony Belcher to local news outlets — reportedly passed the security guard on his way into the women’s restroom at a Giant grocery store in Northeast D.C.

After seeing Belcher walk into the women’s restroom, the security guard followed him in and ordered the man to leave. When he refused, the security guard had to physically escort him out of the women’s restroom.

Upon leaving the store, Belcher called police to have the security guard arrested. D.C. police confirmed to NBC4 Washington that the woman was arrested and charged with simple assault. D.C. police told TheDC that they are treating the incident as a “suspected hate crime.”

Belcher told NBC4 that the security guard told him: “You guys cannot keep coming in here and using our women’s restroom. They did not pass the law yet.”

Byron wrote:The progressive position is that any person who identifies themselves as transgender must be allowed into the restroom or locker room appropriate for their gender identity, regardless of their anatomy. Their self-identification cannot be questioned. Suspected predators should be dealt with not by exclusion, but under laws against harassment and voyeurism. It's not up for debate: to question this is to be trans-phobic.

Minus the accusations of phobia, I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong, but it's a radical change, and I don't think many of its progressive advocates realize just how radical it is.

Briton wrote:What have transgender people been doing up to now? I suspect they have been using loos that match their gender identity; I've never seen a female gender looking person in a gents.

Byron wrote:

Briton wrote:What have transgender people been doing up to now? I suspect they have been using loos that match their gender identity; I've never seen a female gender looking person in a gents.

Of course: trans people simply used the appropriate facilities without bothering anyone; the moral panic about predators was a non-issue, stoked up by the religious right when they lost the equal marriage fight. They went looking for a new target, and being skilled and instinctive bullies, locked sights on transgender people.

In rebuttal, progressives have now staked out a position that, regardless of appearances, the second a person declares a gender identity, they have an absolute and unquestionable right to gain access to the corresponding facility. Perverts weren't masquerading as trans people before (those who've gone searching have found one possible case, and even that's debatable): once they get wind on the implications, they may well start.

I wouldn't be surprised if the self-proclaimed moral majority end up creating the very thing they denounced, and wouldn't be surprised if that was their plan all along.

Briton wrote:I doubt there will be any increase in sexual assaults in toilets. I suspect they are not good hunting grounds for sex offenders simply because they are so public. It would only take one case though for the right wing loons to say "we told you so".

Byron wrote:

Briton wrote:I doubt there will be any increase in sexual assaults in toilets. I suspect they are not good hunting grounds for sex offenders simply because they are so public. It would only take one case though for the right wing loons to say "we told you so".

Exactly what I'm afraid will happen. Can also see groups of smirking dudebros using it to gain access to the women's locker room. Neither would've occurred before the bigoted North Carolina law: may be giving 'em too much credit, but I suspect that its cleverer supporters wanted to goad progressives into taking the positions they have, in order to stir up a backlash.

Byron wrote:The progressive position is that any person who identifies themselves as transgender must be allowed into the restroom or locker room appropriate for their gender identity, regardless of their anatomy. Their self-identification cannot be questioned. Suspected predators should be dealt with not by exclusion, but under laws against harassment and voyeurism. It's not up for debate: to question this is to be trans-phobic.

Minus the accusations of phobia, I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong, but it's a radical change, and I don't think many of its progressive advocates realize just how radical it is.

I'm With Stupid wrote:The whole thing is ridiculous. Firstly, if someone's going to sexually assault someone in a public bathroom, I doubt they're going to give much of a shit about being in the wrong one. That's not really the main crime in that situation.

purplerat wrote:
It seems they are more afraid of penises than guns.

Byron wrote:Purplerat, allowing people with the anatomy of the opposite sex into gender-segregated changing rooms is, at the least, an innovation, and it doesn't just cause knuckle dragging hicks concern: as 'Time' report, it's become an issue even in NYC.

Trans people should absolutely have access to the facilities that match their gender identity, but access needs handling with care, and there needs to be some way to exclude people reasonably suspected of fraud, even if it's so tightly drawn it's rarely used. Yes, jerks have always snuck into locker rooms, but their misbehavior wasn't used to whip up fear of an entire community. People didn't care about equal marriage 'cause it didn't affect them: this does, and if the govt. plays it wrong, the fundies may have their backlash, which can only hurt trans people.