I suspect it’s going to be behavior stuff that is used as the basis for the criminal charges.
And if there were any parole conditions that discussed Darren’s rights to be in women’s locker rooms then that would be relevant too.
I don’t think the legal gender is relevant because anyone is allowed in the locker room of their current gender identity which can change at any moment.
You can literally say “I identify as male” and go in the men’s locker room, and then five minutes later say “I identify as female” and go into the women’s locker room.
At least, according to the article linked in the now-deleted post.
I have a lot of trans friends. They are consistent and clear about their gender identity. Everyone who knows them knows it.
I also have one friend who is genderqueer and sometimes identifies as a man and sometimes as a woman. She usually goes by “Naomi”, but when he’s feeling masculine he wears a name tag that says, “Eric”, to alert his friends to his current gender. She’s not out at work about being genderqueer, and consistently passes as a woman at work. And you know what, she also consistently uses the women’s facilities at places that don’t know her. Because she doesn’t want to deal with the fallout otherwise.
I think there will be evidence in way or the other.
And people like Naomi are obviously who the CA law was trying to be inclusive of. So that Naomi may use the women’s locker room and Eric may use the men’s.
But to write a law in such a way as to work for your friend in the most inclusive way possible means that there is no metric by which you can keep cis-gendered male asshats out of the women’s locker room if they are willing to claim identifying as female.
As the article pointed out, unless a cis-man is literally saying the words “I identify as male” while in the women’s locker room they can’t do anything to keep cis-men out.
The other issue the law may be trying to encompass is that it’s fairly common for people who identify as one sex, maybe even legally changing their driver’s licence and stuff, to look like the other sex, and continue using the public restroom that matches what they look like. So you get men in the ladies room because they have breasts and hips and don’t want to deal with weird reactions from random strangers. I think most people would be okay with them doing that, and you don’t really want your laws to forbid it.
In the before times i went to a woman-only gym. It mostly had open changing areas, but it also had a scattering on private changing rooms. I think they were used more by Orthodox Muslims who were afraid one of the other customers might be male by their standards than by anyone else, but if i even ran into a transwoman in the gym, she must have changed in a private room, too.
(I picked it for it’s location and facilities, not for the “women only” feature. But it has been interesting to see how it’s coped with the gender laws. They won the right to exclude male clients, but not to exclude male employees. That was also an issue for their Orthodox Muslims clientele. They had a lot of separate rooms in part so such women could not be seen by the men.)
Agree that the intent was to promote inclusiveness of those folks too. And people who came out yesterday and haven’t gotten around to having their sex on their driver’s license changed yet.
Convicted in 2014 and sentenced to 4 years for stealing $10 Million in art and a Porsche. Mother and brothers got probation for having the stolen property in their posession. Arrested after the owner of the art offered a $1.7 Million award to find the perp.
I can’t find any details about the indecent exposure charges against Darren in 2002 and 2003, but seems like they’re a habitual offender.
I am curious as to whether your genderqueer friend is male or female. It’s rather easy for a female to pass as a woman, and virtually nobody questions whether a female using women’s facilities is genuine or up to no good.