Quote from: Naturally Blonde on March 07, 2012, 08:21:09 AM
There was a case in the U.K press several years ago about three or four transwomen who didn't pass very well but were post op and used the ladies washroom/toilet and the publican took them to court as cis women were complaining that men were in their washroom. The case eventually went to court and the transwomen lost the case!
Here's another more recent case from 2011:
http://www.passportmagazine.com/blog/archives/2679-transgender-woman-banned-for-life-for-using-ladies-room-at-the-cosmopolitan-hotel-in-las-vegas.htm
I'd like to see a link to the court case. I'm sure the devil's in the details.
As for the Vegas incident, that's different, since there are different protections (or lack thereof) in the US and it's different from state to state and city to city. For example, if this happened in Canada, there'd be a human rights complaint and the plaintiff would win. (There are lots of cases dating back to at least 1996. See Tawni Sheridan v Sanctuary Investments Ltd. doing business as "B.J.'s Lounge." The decision was in 1999 by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in the favour of the plaintiff. It was one of many benchmark cases for BC and Canada.)
Although we're trying to change it, in Canada, TG persons are protected against discrimination under the "or...sex" part of anti-discrimination laws. We're trying to include gender identity and expression as a protected class, but courts have consistently been giving protections under the "or...sex" part of the laws.
Some excerpts:
Both Mr. Winckler and Mr. Stephenson testified that they had received complaints from female patrons of the Respondent about men using the women's washroom. However, the preference of patrons is not a defence to a complaint of discrimination: Hajla v. Nestoras (Welland Plaza Restaurant) (1987), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3879 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) at D/3882.
Based on Dr. Robinow's evidence, I find that transsexuals in transition who are living as members of the desired sex should be considered to be members of that sex for the purposes of human rights legislation. Taking this view, the Complainant, on August 25, 1995, was a woman and, therefore, her choice of the women's washroom was appropriate. The Respondent did not lead any evidence to establish that the use of women's washrooms by a male-to-female transsexual interfered with the "maintenance of public decency".
As transsexuals are protected on the grounds of sex and physical or mental disability, I conclude that the Respondent's washroom policy discriminated against the Complainant on both these grounds, contrary to section 8 of the Code.
