Recent comments in /f/nottheonion

aagjevraagje t1_j9t65a4 wrote

Reply to comment by MrTomDawson in Face of man banned from every women's toilets in UK by Elsa87

In a lot of places gendered bathrooms are not in fact legally enforced.

Men who need to use a changing station or borrow a toilet roll or have to deal with maintenance being done on the mens toilet or whatever other non creepy reason one might use the bathroom of another gender for have not crossed any legal boundary.

It’s harrasing people and voyourism that’s not allowed.

That’s how it works in much of the world.

86

cb43569 t1_j9t49jz wrote

Reply to comment by MrTomDawson in Face of man banned from every women's toilets in UK by Elsa87

There are no laws in the UK governing which bathroom you can use. The fact that women use the women's bathroom and men use the men's bathroom is a matter of social convention. It's a bit like how there's no law saying you can't skip a queue, but you would be shamed by the people around you if you did. (In the US in recent years, right-wing Republicans have been introducing "bathroom bills" enforcing this division, but in the service of transphobia by excluding trans women from women's bathrooms.)

In this case, a court has made an order banning this guy from women's bathrooms, meaning that he will in fact be guilty of a criminal offence if he goes into one.

121

pornosucht t1_j9t3efq wrote

Reply to A pregnant murder suspect should get out of jail because her fetus hasn't been charged with a crime and isn't getting proper medical care, court documents argue by jdb1984

If you ignore the "the fetus is a person" discussion, the critical point remaining is the inadequate medical care.

So in this case it would be easy, ensure proper medical care, topic closed.

Once you make a fetus a person, the legal context gets complicated. Good work from the attorney, their job is to use anything they can to help their client. So no matter if the law or legal philosophy behind it is stupid, if it is there, use it.

Regarding the question if it is acceptable to release her, (again, ignoring the fetus discussion), I think the real question is why she is held in jail in the first place. From what I see in the article, the discussion between prosecutor and defence is, if she acted in self defence or with malicious intent. Does not immediately scream "cold blooded serial killer" to me. So something like house arrest with ankle monitor could be a better approach. But the question is, why this option was not chosen in the beginning.

29