Where do you get the "sign" from........if it is illegal to for a man to be in the women's bathroom...he can be arrested just for that....no need to wait till he assaults someone to arrest him.....
If he's going to assault women and children, why would a law the says he can't go into a bathroom prevent him from doing so? After all, there's already a law saying that he can't assault women and children, right? If that's not going to stop him, why would he honor a bathroom law?
Your argument is just beyond silly. And completely hypothetical.
Worse, transgender people are being assault in truth when forced into bathrooms that don't match their gender identity. You're literally arguing that *real* harm should be inflicted on transgender people to prevent hypothetical harm based on wildly stupid reasoning. Where a law forbidding assault is meaningless.....but a law forbidding entry into a bathroom magically prevents it from happening.
No thank you.
Nope.....woman: officer, there is a man just hanging out in the women's bathroom......cop arrests man.
If its simple as that, then why do women and children get assaulted
now in bathrooms?
And not by transgender women. Your 'solution' is in desperate search of a problem. As the people you're targeting are not the folks committing the crimes you're seeking to prevent. As your scenario is entirely notional.
Remember, its *already* illegal to go into a public bathroom with any other intent than to use the facilities. If anyone, man or woman, is hanging out without using them.....you can ask them to leave. So.....what's the ******* point of your law?
And of course, trans people are already being harmed by being forced to use bathrooms that conflict with their gender identity. Why would I ignore *real* harm in the face of your absolutely hypothetical imagined 'risk' for which the evidence simply doesn't match up?
Especially when assaults of women and children in bathrooms *already* demonstrate that your 'solution' doesn't prevent such crimes.