Comments on: Khadijah Farmer v. Caliente Cab Co.

By: The case against “Civil Gideon”

The case against “Civil Gideon” — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:29:31 +0000

[…] by attorneys. Let’s use the resources we have before we ask the taxpayers to kick in. In the Caliente Cab case, a woman who looked masculine was incorrectly thrown out of a restaurant when the bouncer […]

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:48:27 +0000

I think that they should have refused to pay for the meal.
Let the restaurant call the police (if they dare) and then let the police check her ID and, Voila! problem solved.
Bouncer is, hopefully, profusely sorry, restaurant comps their meals. etc.

Am I being too hopeful?

By: Zoe Brain

Zoe Brain — Mon, 19 May 2008 05:01:35 +0000

I’m Intersexed – with a body neither 100% M nor 100% F.

Neurologically, standard female, which caused problems when I looked male. Long story, I have one of the conditions where that can get better.

When I looked male, I used the male restrooms. Had to use a cubicle of course, I lacked certain essentials.

Now I look female, I use the female restrooms. That matches my passport(s) (I have dual nationality), my medical condition, my OB/GYN’s opinions etc. as well as, well, my self. It does not match my birth certificate nor my chromosomes.

Having seen Ms Farmer on video, I don’t blame the bouncer for being suspicious. her whole demeanour and body language is male, just as mine isn’t. Yet she’s indubitably female, has internal plumbing I wasn’t issued with, and 46xx chromosomes.

I do blame the bouncer not just for the battery, but the refusal to look at the ID, or any other evidence. He not only threw Ms Farmer out, but her dining companions too, insisting they pay for food they had no opportunity to eat. For the battery, a few thousand is appropriate. For the humiliation, I think they got off very lightly.

Note that this happened during some sort of “Gay Pride” parade, where people of non-standard appearance were the norm.

By: Bob Neal

Bob Neal — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:32:04 +0000

You think we don’t already have rulings that male/female only bathrooms are illegal? Think again.

If someone who is anatomically male identifies as a female, employers must allow them to use the women’s restroom and those female employees who complain are SOL. It’s a mad world we live in.

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:46:33 +0000

I’m sure this kind of thing has been commented on before, but is it really “pro bono” if the settlement includes attorney’s fees?

By: econo-bill

econo-bill — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:14:46 +0000

A small point: unless you believe that the restaurant business in manhattan is not competitive, or that the owners/managers of Caliente are not profit-maximizers, the owners will be taking the entire hit in the back-pocket. To the microscopic extent that the entire industry will increase prices to deal with the expected cost of recurrences of this sort of foolishness, you are right that customers will pay in the form of higher prices, but this effect will be so microscopic that it illuminates your point that there is no public good in this one. (The idea that the whole industry will introduce the proactive measures that Caliente agreed to – or that Caliente’s introduction of them on its own – constitutes “public good” needs some heavy duty evidence before I will believe it.) And with no public good, the plaintiff lawyers have effected an inefficient transfer of wealth from the Caliente owners to the oh-so-wronged-in-a-completely-unforeseeable-way plaintiff.

By: throckmorton

throckmorton — Fri, 16 May 2008 12:35:20 +0000

I can only imagine what will happen next with our activist courts. “Male” and “Female” bathrooms will be determined to be un-Constitutional as they dicriminate based on sex and we will be forced to have “unisexual rooms”. Further any business that had “Male” and “Female” restrooms will be found to retrospectively committed discrimination and will be sued.