- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 65,561
- Reaction score
- 8,846
That's actually not what the ruling says. Which is the distinction I'm making. The woman should be informed how the company defines women's bathrooms. Just like if the company said private bathrooms but didn't disclose that they were unisex. That's something that the customer might care about. So the customer might care about trans gender people using the same bathroom - that's not a definition that transwomen are not women, only that the customer should be informed about how the definition is being applied. For a parallel - many restaurants disclose that they prepare shellfish in the same kitchen as non-shellfish. They do it to avoid litigation because one person out there is going to claim that boiling lobsters near the salad is a dangerous practice. So, people disclose this stuff to avoid liability. This is just going to be another area where contracts will evolve to protect corporations from litigation.
I think either interpretation can be made, but I think mine is more accurate. Indicating that there was an addendum that may have been appropriate to indicate who is using the bathroom, indicates that a man identifying as a woman is not a woman, by the common definition.
No, this ruling does not state in no uncertain terms "men dressed like women, who act like woman, are still not women," but it definitely infers that calling these men "women" is something that needs to be examined, because at this point that simply isn't the case.