The 18-year-old high school student said she unzipped her hoodie to show she had breasts after a Buffalo Wild Wings server didn't believe she is a woman.
I do, I think this is more bigotry that has become commonplace because of Republican rhetoric against trans people. The law is dumb and the server trying to enforce it is probably a bigot and a terrible person.
That being said, people are reacting to the headline. The person I was responding to was correctly pointing out that the headline is misleading. It’s easy to point out how bigoted these laws are without completely fabricating information (like the headline is doing).
Pointing out misinformation does not automatically mean the person is defending the actions. Pointing out misinformation is how we keep from becoming like Republican voters, living in a world build out of lies and spin. Downvoting people who are pointing out that you’re being lied to is ignorant and actively makes the misinformation problem worse because it deranks the comments that would help people be better informed.
If you want to litigate the headline, here’s the snippets from the article.
From the article:
When she went to the restroom, a server followed her inside and banged on the stall door while saying: “This is a women’s restroom. The man needs to get out of here,” […]
when she came out of the stall at Buffalo Wild Wings and told the server, “I am a lady,” she said, the server responded, “You have to get out now,”[…]
Mudra said she felt she had to prove to the server that she is a woman, so she unzipped her hoodie to show she has breasts. The server didn’t say anything in response but left the restroom
The server didn’t ‘force her to prove her gender’, the server banged on the door and said that men couldn’t be in the restroom (which, again, is bigoted and enraging). The woman came out of the stall and unzipped her hoodie to show her breasts to the server who left without saying anything.
The headline is clearly incorrect and written to amplify outrage (in order to drive traffic for ad revenue)
So an adult confronted a child in the restroom, banging on the door and demanding she prove her sex. The implied threat was that if she didn’t, she would be thrown from the restroom or the restaurant entirely.
You are using a deliberately thick-headed definition of “force.” The word “force” does not literally mean physical force. It means coercion, manipulation, requiring someone to do something against their will for fear of consequences.
I’m taught courses before. I don’t "force " my students to take exams. I’m not going to go to their home and frog march them at gunpoint into my classroom to take my exam. But anyone in my class is forced to take any exam I give, if they wish to pass the class. It’s optional in a philosophical sense, but not in the practical sense.
You’re splitting hairs because this is a trans-related topic, nothing more.
We don’t know the age of the server and 18 is an adult in the US.
banging on the door and demanding she prove her sex.
These are the only recorded statements of the server based on the victim’s testimony.
“This is a women’s restroom. The man needs to get out of here,” […] “You have to get out now,”
Which of these sentences is 'demanding she prove her sex?
The implied threat was that if she didn’t, she would be thrown from the restroom or the restaurant entirely.
There was no ‘if’ (see the two sentences above), she was told to get out of the restroom.
I’m taught courses before. I don’t "force " my students to take exams. I’m not going to go to their home and frog march them at gunpoint into my classroom to take my exam. But anyone in my class is forced to take any exam I give, if they wish to pass the class. It’s optional in a philosophical sense, but not in the practical sense.
They are required to take the test, you do not “force” them. If someone said ‘Teacher forces children to take test’, the implication is that they didn’t have a choice because you are forcing them.
Here too, the woman was not “forced” she chose to show her breasts. Forcing implies the inability to do otherwise. The people in the comment section are reacting to the headline as if the woman had no choice but to show her breasts to the server. This is not true.
You’re splitting hairs because this is a trans-related topic, nothing more.
🙄 In the courses you taught, did you force your students to learn the term ad homenim?
They don’t want to know what happened, they want to be angry.
If the headline is more enraging than the article, they’ll believe that instead.
You don’t find the article enraging?
I do, I think this is more bigotry that has become commonplace because of Republican rhetoric against trans people. The law is dumb and the server trying to enforce it is probably a bigot and a terrible person.
That being said, people are reacting to the headline. The person I was responding to was correctly pointing out that the headline is misleading. It’s easy to point out how bigoted these laws are without completely fabricating information (like the headline is doing).
Pointing out misinformation does not automatically mean the person is defending the actions. Pointing out misinformation is how we keep from becoming like Republican voters, living in a world build out of lies and spin. Downvoting people who are pointing out that you’re being lied to is ignorant and actively makes the misinformation problem worse because it deranks the comments that would help people be better informed.
If you want to litigate the headline, here’s the snippets from the article.
From the article:
The server didn’t ‘force her to prove her gender’, the server banged on the door and said that men couldn’t be in the restroom (which, again, is bigoted and enraging). The woman came out of the stall and unzipped her hoodie to show her breasts to the server who left without saying anything.
The headline is clearly incorrect and written to amplify outrage (in order to drive traffic for ad revenue)
So an adult confronted a child in the restroom, banging on the door and demanding she prove her sex. The implied threat was that if she didn’t, she would be thrown from the restroom or the restaurant entirely.
You are using a deliberately thick-headed definition of “force.” The word “force” does not literally mean physical force. It means coercion, manipulation, requiring someone to do something against their will for fear of consequences.
I’m taught courses before. I don’t "force " my students to take exams. I’m not going to go to their home and frog march them at gunpoint into my classroom to take my exam. But anyone in my class is forced to take any exam I give, if they wish to pass the class. It’s optional in a philosophical sense, but not in the practical sense.
You’re splitting hairs because this is a trans-related topic, nothing more.
We don’t know the age of the server and 18 is an adult in the US.
These are the only recorded statements of the server based on the victim’s testimony.
Which of these sentences is 'demanding she prove her sex?
There was no ‘if’ (see the two sentences above), she was told to get out of the restroom.
They are required to take the test, you do not “force” them. If someone said ‘Teacher forces children to take test’, the implication is that they didn’t have a choice because you are forcing them.
Here too, the woman was not “forced” she chose to show her breasts. Forcing implies the inability to do otherwise. The people in the comment section are reacting to the headline as if the woman had no choice but to show her breasts to the server. This is not true.
🙄 In the courses you taught, did you force your students to learn the term ad homenim?
Would she have been left alone if she hadn’t proven her gender?