Did you just argue that the person taking action first is relevant to who is taking action first?

You said it is not relevant, I simply replied that it is relevant.

In order to create a proper chain of legal action you need to take the proper steps. Filing the claim, providing evidence, and proceeding to resolution.

Assuming that the person who decides if the action is intentional is the victim, you follow the next step. Providing evidence. How do you provide evidence to a court of law that you identify as nonbinary or otherwise? How do you provide evidence that this person was intentionally offending you? How do you resolve a case like this? There is no real evidence.

The only evidence through this method is someone's feelings got hurt.
If the company decides, there would be guidelines and rules put in place to protect both parties.

The problem we are experiencing is that we are not even discussing the same legislation. For my part I am treating it as an amendment to already existing anti-harassment legislation. I am not certain that you are treating it in the same way. This could be what is resulting in some of your questions being unusual to me. In New Zealand we already have legislation, procedures and support groups in place to deal with cases of harassment. Furthermore under our Human Rights Act of 1993 employers have a legal responsibility when it comes to cases of harassment. Failure to sufficiently address cases of harassment itself constitutes an act of harassment.

So speaking to the questions you have raised regarding procedure, evidence and interpretation I would maintain the argument that these would be the same as any cases regarding harassment. The verbal nature of this particular instance is not new to our harassment legislation. Although as you mention, it can be quite a difficult process to prove harassment has happened. That is definitely something I can agree with you on.

Edit: While I was thinking of the situation here in New Zealand, one can find corresponding legislation in Australia as well.

Amendment or not, it still has confusing variables. You can prove race, you can prove sex, you can not prove gender identity. My drivers license shows the first 2.

Additionally, simply not wanting to call someone by the exact phrase they want does not classify as harassment.
There is a large difference between "Don't use these words" and "you must use this word".

But lets look at the process. Say you are offended because you are called sir when you identify as female. You correct them and they do it again. You fire a harassment claim. The one who reviews your claim looks at your file. It states you are male. There is no legal evidence to prove otherwise. The claim will be dropped.

On the other hand, you introduce an additional line on your ID which states gender identity. You have physical evidence. This makes it available on file when your claim is posted. It also prevents people from exploiting one bathroom or the other as checking one's ID is possible. To change it could be the same cost as changing one's name and possibly part of the same fee. So changing your name would allow you to change your gender identity to Male, Female, or Non-Binary.

If done properly it protects everyone involved. I don't think it was done properly.

Edit - So many grammar errors on this...

If we are speaking about Australia, there appear to already have been guidelines in place since 2013.

https://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/D...xandGender.pdf

Edit: It is also worth noting that we are discussing hypotheticals, I think we strayed from the legislation mentioned in your opening post quite some time ago. The legislation this thread was started around was only concerning official state bodies wasn't it?

I'm not able to find anything that makes this information public knowledge though.

Well in some ways it is still relevant, because if you want to be referred to as something by for example your teacher, how do you prove to your teacher that you identify as that?
This legislation to my knowledge affects all businesses as well. Which means it effects all employees.
These employees do not have access to this "personal record" to prove that this person be it a coworker or a customer is what they say they are.

The gender of the majority of the world is public knowledge. If they want equality, their gender should also be public knowledge with a form of identification (like being put on your state issued ID). This protects everyone involved, and it helps to weed out those who identify as a gender simply because it's getting popular.

Today my mom and I got into a fight because when we went to my therapy appointment yesterday, there was a sign on the door saying, "We accept all genders, so please feel free to use the bathroom you feel suits you" or something like that...
And my mom decided to complain about it saying, "What if I am offended if a man walks into the women's bathroom?"
And the woman behind the counter said, "Well you're free to use the bathroom down the hall" And my mom got even more pissed off and was like, "Why do *I* have to use the bathroom down the hall?! Why can't *they* use the bathroom down the hall?!"

And I had to explain to her that bathrooms are literally just to relieve yourself and it doesn't matter because you're not looking into the stall of the other person...

And then we met a transgender man at our favorite Teavana and he was really nice and my mom was really nice to him. Then I said, "Hey mom... So you think _____ should use the women's bathroom because he was born a woman?" And she said "YES." [facepalm]

And I said, "But mom, he has a beard! He LOOKS like a man... So you'd seriously feel comfortable having a MAN walk into the bathroom just because he was born female?!" This man really did look like a man besides having breasts... So I was really shocked and disappointed in my mom. We ended up having to agree to disagree...

I just hope that if a transgender woman walks into the bathroom at my therapist's clinic that she doesn't have a goddamn heart attack.... She'll never make it in LA.

No where did I call you a bigot? I simply stated that the concerns you're bringing forward (which you have not all claimed as your own) are not based in fact, and have roots with intolerance of others.

I do however - find it interesting that those who make fun of feminist and safe spaces get offended and up in arms when called out (or in this case, the calling out of an idea).

I hope you take the time to go back over this thread and really listen to what a majority of us are saying (in that you are incorrect with your assessment of the law, and it doesn't work the way you think it does). Because your slippery slope arguments, and far-fetched solutions are absurd.

And as someone who claims that society needs time to adapt, and companies don't have money to make changes to bathrooms I would like you to think about the cost of changing IDs. And the potential risks to those with gender-markers on their ID. It puts them at risk. What if something crazy like... Canada electing a Trump happens and all of a sudden these IDs are used against gender nonconforming or trans people?

I'd also like to point out that no one has their gender on their ID. But their sex. :)

Also - Ava: I've had similar experiences. My Aunt once yelled out across a restaurant telling me I was going into the wrong bathroom. They were single stall, and the 'female' one was being used. I used the 'male' one anyway. No one but my Aunt cared. She couldn't wrap her mind around why I was not just waiting for the other bathroom.

There are various ways in which a person can communicate grievances. Ideally they should be able to, in the first instance, talk to the teacher. Directly tell them what gender you identify as and if required what gendered pronouns are appropriate. Although if you are not comfortable talking directly to the teacher there are other avenues to explore both within, and outside of, the school.

When it comes to employees, you could also try to talk to them directly yourself. The same applies here in that there are other avenues a person can take to raise the issue.

Yes, the cost aspect is definitely an important factor. This could effectively price it out of many marginalized people's reach. Not everyone is able to afford the costs of getting appropriate identification. The same problem plays out when they impose voting suppression legislation. Not to mention the distasteful implications of a person having to "prove" their gender identity before taking their claims seriously. This seems more akin to state sanctioned harassment and reminds me of the specter of race politics.