Transgender woman banned from Idaho store

SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) - A transgender woman whose use of a women's restroom in an Idaho grocery store reportedly upset other customers has been cited for trespassing and banned from the store for a year, police said on Friday.

A Rosauers supermarket in Lewiston asked police to charge 25-year-old Ally Robledo, who was born male but identifies as female, with the misdemeanor trespass charge on Monday, Lewiston Police Captain Roger Lanier said.

"The store security officer said he had been dealing with a problem over a couple days with the person going into the women's restroom and urinating while standing up," Lanier said.

He added that the store had reported that Robledo's use of the restroom made other female customers "very uncomfortable."

Robledo said she was being discriminated against.

"I'm a female trapped in a man's body. It's natural for me to go to the ladies' room. Getting the no trespassing order for a public restroom was really painful," she said.

The incident follows several cases that have stoked public debate about the boundaries of gender identity and the rights of transgender people to use accommodations such as restrooms in government buildings and businesses open to the public.

In February the parents of a 6-year-old transgender girl in Colorado filed a complaint with the state's civil rights agency challenging a decision by education officials to deny their child access to the girls' restrooms in her school. The case is being closely watched by civil libertarians.

Then last month in Arizona, a judge declined to grant a divorce to a transgender man, ruling he could not prove he was a male when he wed his wife in Hawaii. Same-sex marriages are not recognized in Arizona. The man has said he would appeal.

Colorado and a dozen other states have laws explicitly barring discrimination against transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations, but Idaho does not, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Robledo said she was being unfairly treated by the store and by authorities in a rural area where questions about gender identity and the rights of transgender people rarely arise.

"I'm struggling here in this rural community as a transgender. Now I feel even more vulnerable," she said.

Ilona Turner, legal director of Transgender Law Center in San Francisco, said it was discriminatory to prevent transgender people from using the same facilities as everyone else.

"Transgender people have the same needs and deserve the same access to public stores and facilities as others without discrimination based on who they are. They just need to go to the bathroom like everyone else," she told Reuters by email.

An executive with Rosauers, a regional supermarket chain based in Spokane, Washington, did not respond to a request for comment.

Under Idaho law, anyone who owns or controls a property can deny access to it. Lanier said police responded to a trespassing matter involving Robledo and were not in a position to address the transgender issue.

"Society has yet to define exactly what makes a transgender. Far be it from a police department in Idaho to try to define that," he said.

Genetically she is male and still has her genitals. Dressing up and taking steps to become a women doesn't mean you are going to be recognized as a women in public.

Is this still comicvine?

@bogey said:

I'm impressed that you still referred to her as "she." I'll never pretend to understand wanting to change your gender, but we should respect the wishes of those that do :)

At the end, it's not a public restroom. The owner of the bathroom can make whatever rules he wants about it. The whole point of having separate restrooms is for individuals' sensibilities and comfort, so I can understand banning her from the female restroom. I also get that it must be frustrating for her. All in all, it's a bad situation.

how does this have anything to do with whether or not she deserve to go to the f%^&ing store?

The private business owner gets to decide who they can do business with and according to the article, Abby committed a crime in the store and is now banned. Her response is that this is discrimination when it's really more of a safety concern.

QFT

It's a very tricky situation. For her it's already very difficult living as a transgender as she stated herself. And having blow after blow doesn't help her psychological. It's terrible that there's still such a stigma that we can't accept people for who they are.

Having said that, i do get the legal reasons for not allowing her to go in the bathroom. Because this would set the door wide open for people who would abuse the situations. Male crossdressing just to go in the ladies bathroom for example. I can also understand this would make women nervous and uncomfortable.

I think denying heraccess to the store is way out of line though. Instead of banning her they could have a civil discussion that they prefer it if she used the male restroom for reasons stated above. My heart says she should be allowed to go in the female restroom though.

The real problem though is that being transgender isn't defined by the law as stated in the last sentence.

Yeah I agree.

It is a tricky situation and I think the store was out of line banning her,since as you say it is already probably hard enough.

And I understand why they would expect them to use the male bathroom since they technically aren't a female,not physically anyway.

All men are created equal.

@kal_smahboi:

At the end, it's not a public restroom. The owner of the bathroom can make whatever rules he wants about it. The whole point of having separate restrooms is for individuals' sensibilities and comfort, so I can understand banning her from the female restroom. I also get that it must be frustrating for her. All in all, it's a bad situation.

This.

and some men get there equally created parts pulled out and reconstructed differently, because they feel differently than they were created.

They probably asked her to stop using the bathroom before, but she was too stubborn. It sucks that she can't go to the bathroom, but it makes sense. I mean, how do they even know? If she pees standing up, don't you think she is just trying to get noticed? You would think she would want to be sitting down, anyway. The bathroom is supposed to be a place where you have an experience all to yourself. You shouldn't share it with anyone, so the other patrons shouldn't even know she's still pre-op. The only way it would be obvious was if she was trying to make it obvious. When, in the bathroom, do you actively watch the other people? She had to have been trying to make it obvious. I still feel bad for her, but it's not the same as Jim Crow laws, and it's not fair to compare the two.

another unfortunate instance of prejudice in a slow to evolve mankind.

She should have at least sat down to pee...

Makes sense.

He's a he and he should still use the bathroom for males.

Not really.

Hulk think that is kind of discriminating. Hulk does not approve.

Honestly, I would be freaked out if I went into the bathroom and I found this person there. She may identify as female and has the right to do that but it doesn't change her physical appearance. I don't think it's discrimination because the safety of women (physically) on the store's premises was likely what was taken into account. Think of the men creeps that would take advantage if they'd let it slide. The year's ban was a bit harsh but what else could they have done to discourage such behavior from others?

@xenter said:

Careful, your ignorance is showing.

hmmm. first of all, she is still physically speaking a male. also, she was peeing standing up, so if she really indentifies as a female, and being in such a place, shouldn't she have sat down?

Im not trying to defend the store, but she also made some mistakes. it's a bad situation, granted.

The store and the rural area obviously need to be less discriminatory but the woman should also be more careful, just because she still has the body of a man, or atleast the man parts.

I mean, is it really that bad for an adult woman or man to use the opposite genders restroom? in here, it's common, kind of, to do it when our respective restroom is full, since there are cubicles and stuff.

So, in this case, I think she should've been more careful

However, in the lil girls case I think it's pretty stupid what the school did. The girl is psychologically struggling I assume, with gender identification and segregating her in such a basic need from her gender peers is not helpful at all.

conclusion: if you are a grown man or woman, just try to be careful, not everyone will understand. but if it's a young kid or a teen, I think they are in their full right to use the restroom of the gender they identify themselves with even if they are not yet physically of that gender

@skooks: Last time I checked, he's still a he. Is he not?

I'm refering to the constitution

Well obviously not, no.

Penises use the penis room. Vaginas use the vagina room.

If this person walked in on my wife while she was using the restroom I would go to jail.

nope im not reading all that

So its prejudice of the store owner to ban someone who broke a law in their store?

Also if he identified as a woman then why did he stand to use the restroom?

@skooks: In my opinion, he is still a he. You just can't avoid people getting uncomfortable at the thought that a gender of the opposite sex is in the same comfort room as you. Changing one's appearance through surgery to match his/her thought of who he/she thinks he/she is? I don't understand that. But, I, of course still respect it.

i can see what the bathroom user did. when i was at the mall near the comic con down in da burgh i had to go and since i was madeover and had part of my costume on, i went into the ladies room. naturally i sat down and not a single f--k was given that day. i dont think people knew that i wasnt a female nor did i think they care. but if youre going to use the ladies room, have the decency to sit down and lock the door. its not rocket science

umbrafeline is male

If this ladies bathroom was a multi-occupant deal and my wife was in there and I knew that you were a dude in costume and I saw you try to enter we would have had a little problem....

And if I didn't recognize you were a dude but later discovered that you were a dude who had entered a multi-occupant woman's bathroom which my wife was currently using we also would have had a little problem....

it is kind of an issue of proximity...

Now if said bathroom was a single occupant (which may not have been the case in the OP story as there was a witness to a standing pee-er) I really could care less who uses it as long as they lock the door to prevent someone from having an experience which they might not want to have. I as a plumber in my past life have done this on many occasions.

i see where you are coming from, but if you got to go... dont squeeze the charmin

@thespideyguy said:

Not on this planet they aren't.

=)

I hear you! I guess I didn't catch the urgency in your anecdote.

In that case I say to a stranger or bystander "Hey keep a look out" and I call before opening the door "Hellloooo anybody in heeerreee?" And should there be no one else around and I was doing my business...each time someone came to the door (cause you know how crazy busy ladies bathrooms are...always a line it seems) I would holler "Occupado!" hoping my male voice would do the trick!

I would deal with the repercussions later.

Somethings never change.

Some things shouldn't.

You don't respect it though, if you did you wouldn't call her a he.

exactlly

4/10, would not bang

@skooks: I do, I just disagreed with her mentality and stated my opinion.

This is ridiculous.

First off, too many questions came to mind here - the most glaring one being the "standing up to pee" thing. Who the heck witnessed this? Last I checked, there are no urinals in a female washroom. Was this a multi stalled washroom? In that case, the only wrong thing was to have the stall door open (which then it could turn into an indecent exposure charge).

Secondly, the OP stated this was a problem that occurred over a two day period? I don't understand that.

Thirdly, I don't care. I really don't. Arguments about my privacy being compromised I don't get -- I mean, if a person intends to assault someone through the use of a public washroom, they can slap on a wig (or put on a fake mustache) and have at it.

Don't hog up mirror space is all I ask. The rest is none of my business and it shouldn't be anyone else's. If someone has an issue with a public washroom's "allowed" gender, then don't use one.

The law needs to be changed in that state and this case will hopefully be what changes it.

As for those people who say the store-owner has the right to serve who wants, that in itself is pathetic. To open any business requires a permit and being allowed to run said business within a community (or alongside well traveled route) makes you a service provider to the public.

Shades of grey, nothing is clear-cut in this instance but important questions have been raised on both sides of the issue so at least something will come out of this in terms of the law being more clear. Hopefully it will reflect the right thing.