On Monday we told you about a transgender woman in Houston who was arrested last week for using the women’s restroom at a city library. The woman, who identifies as female but has not had sexual reassignment surgery, was charged with entering a restroom of the opposite sex.
Again, the woman’s arrest goes against a comprehensive nondiscrimination policy enacted by Mayor Annise Parker that allows people to use restrooms at city facilities based on their gender identity. But as it turns out, regardless of the nondiscrimination policy, this appears to have been a false arrest. That’s because the city ordinance on which the arrest was based clearly states that it’s only a violation if the person enters a restroom of the opposite sex “in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.” According to TransGriot, a cisgender woman successfully sued the city in 1990 after she was arrested for using a men’s restroom because she didn’t want to wait in the long women’s line. Here’s the city ordinance, taken directly from Municicode, with the relevant portion bolded:
Sec. 28-20. – Entering restrooms of opposite sex.
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally enter any public restroom designated for the exclusive use of the sex opposite to such person’s sex without the permission of the owner, tenant, manager, lessee or other person in charge of the premises, in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.
Looks like the arresting officer(s) must have trained in Dallas…
Terms
GRT/f (Gender Reassignment Transition to female)
GRT/m (Gender Reassignment Transition to male)
GRS (Gender Reassignment Surgery)
GPI (Gender Physical Incongruency)
Residence: Los Angeles Area
I am a GRT/f that is acknowledged as female practically 100% of the time by first-time contacts. I have been hormonally female for two years and use ONLY the women’s restroom. I have never been challenged and outside of the stall I feel like simply another woman which of course hormonally I have been for two years. I have received strange looks by others in the restroom>>>the men’s restroom. This of course confirmed for me that restroom visits to the men’s room, by necessity, were concluding. The hormones had done their job which was further confirmed when my nurse asked me “how much did they cost?” referring to upper breast development. I promptly answered “$7 for a 3 month prescription” referring to my low-cost insurance plan that I had at the time.
Without ANY facial surgery, I have been told “your eyes are so feminine!” Did you get your nose done? I just love your eyebrows! Your face is so clear and soft! I love your complexion! And best of all the comment from a make-up female: “What? No way! Are you serious? I didn’t know you were born a boy! I have met quite a few transgender females and I can tell right away and with you I had no clue!” (as she pulled out her cell phone to take a picture to show her friends and four other salon females crowded around me to hear my story).
But this is not about me. This is about restroom use. After about 1 year on hormones, to my surprise because It hadn’t yet dawned on my that I was growing again (to female that is), my doctor completed a form that I submitted to DMV for a gender marker change on my license. They wouldn’t change the name until I went to court to change my own name which costs about $400 so its still pending.
Ok. I don’t know how far along Ms. Moore is relating to her legal documents but it need not matter. Of course, ultimately this issue will cease as more public-access unisex restrooms are made available but in the meantime….
There are tall females, short females, beautiful females, not-so-beautiful females, fat females, skinny females on and on and on and transgender females. BUT FEMALES NONETHELESS. Although Ms. Moore qualified herself as “transgender” female, which some could argue was too much information, she did say FEMALE. At this point the employee should have dropped the issue. But if I may back up just a little bit. The employee, based on the video, and apparently without a third party complaint asked an indirect and invasive medically-related question (as in anatomy) when she asked Ms. Moore “are you (a) female?” There are many females who express outwardly as male with the only clue that they might be female being their lack/evidence of facial hair or facial shaving. Their is only one way to really verify if someone in a restroom is male or female. Maybe this is why many restrooms across the Atlantic are Co-ed (based on what I’ve read).
Oh, allow me to add that my ID shows my “sex” as F. No name change yet but my Med Dr. completed a form I submitted for gender marker change PRECISELY in case something like this occurred which it has not in two years. Not sure what Ms. Moores ID states but if her “sex” marker is “F”, this statute on its face would not apply regardless of what is btwn her legs.
OOPS, one more….in my police academy in California, unless I was taught wrong, notwithstanding that this occurred in Texas, a statute applies only if ALL the elements are met.
The phrase “…in a matter calculated to cause a disturbance” is not written in invisible ink. It is an element of that must have occurred for this statute to apply.
Feeling the need to question a person, as in this instance, was only an attempt at authentication, not a disturbance. So who was disturbed here?
The statue is poorly written for the following reason: after “…disturbance” it doesn’t specify the need for a disturbance to have in fact occurred. So the focus is on the word “calculated” which relates to mental state, or the HOW a person ENTERS the restroom. Again, the person has to have entered the restroom for the purpose of disruption not vacating one’s bowels.
The word disturbance is also subjective. I am sure it is disturbing to most to have a person with poor hygiene and offensive body order enter into the restroom. I am sure it is disturbing to have children causing a ruckus in the restroom and for someone to be talking to themselves….on and on.
Or talking on one’s cell phone while doing number two.
That statute is unconstitutionally vague anyway. The way it’s written, there’s no way to know whether “in a manner calculated to cause a distrubance” refers to “enter,” “designated,” or “use.”