this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
595 points (98.1% liked)

Malicious Compliance

22899 readers
6 users here now

People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/65235734

On August 8, police arrived on the scene of Long Branch Lagoon Water Park in Dodge City, Kansas, to the sight of three self-described “bearded, burly men” who had been in the women’s bathroom and changing area. The manager of the municipally run property allegedly screamed and rushed children out the door.

The men knew this was likely. They didn’t agitate any of the women; they didn’t remove their clothes or make crass comments. They simply used the gendered spaces that the state of Kansas requires them to use by law, because these men are transgender.

“Supporters of SB244, including Attorney General Kris Kobach and Senate Majority Leader Ty Masterson, billed it as a way to keep men out of women’s spaces; it clearly requires some men to enter women’s spaces,” a press release sent to news outlets reads. So, these men took action—using malicious compliance to prove their point.

“Segregating people by suspected genitalia does nothing to improve public safety; it does quite the opposite by opening Kansans up to sexual harassment and discrimination. At no point should anyone be asking anyone else what genitals they have in public.”

The men, dressed in yellow “Compliance Crew” shirts, were part of a small group of trans-masculine Kansans who used the women’s room at facilities across the state that day in a coordinated action. They were also spotted at a zoo, a library, a museum, and other parks. They were in Emporia, Great Bend, Garden City, and Dodge City. At the library, at least one patron complained; at other places, the men used the bathroom and received dirty looks, and simply left the space without confrontation.

But at Long Branch Lagoon, members of the Kansas Compliance Crew resorted to having to describe their genitals to police in order to resolve the matter and avoid arrest.

“The men had a discussion with the manager and police and explained the situation, including uncomfortable descriptions of their bodies,” the press release said. Furthermore, both the manager and the police reportedly said “they had never heard of SB244 nor been notified by any government entity of its passage.”

“I could easily continue using the men’s restroom under the radar,” said Ray Vieux, who participated as one of the demonstrators.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bootyhole@lemmus.org 88 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (9 children)

A friend of mine is a lesbian. She identifies fully as female. She does not want to be a man at all. She is a woman who wears somewhat men's type clothing for the comfort. Her face is extremely feminine. She does not try to present as a man at all.

She's had numerous issues going to the bathroom. One time male employees of the bar went into the women's loo and opened the stall she was in, without identifying themselves or saying anything... while she was changing her pad. I was at the mirror when it happened and tried to stop them. I was physically pushed away and told to stfu.

These MEN walked in on her while she was cleaning her period. It's clear she's female at this point, but they didn't Apologize and close the stall door. They stood there and yelled at her while she was trying to put a new pad on without pulling her panties up, because it would stain them.

They didn't Apologize. I asked them to. She asked them to. They demanded to see her ID saying she was female before they'd close the stall door. I ended up going out of the bathroom and calling 911 to say that 3 men sexually harassed a woman in a stall while she was cleaning her period. They said "well, we thought she was a man so it's ok". But she was doing nothing to anyone.

The owner tried giving us a $200 bar tab, but I told her to refuse because if legal issues came from it, it would be like accepting the pay out.

She still has mental stress issues when she goes out and has to use the bathroom, especially while on her period. We only go to places where people know her or places that have unisex bathrooms.

These maga a holes wanted to "protect women" by forcing a woman to change her pad in front of them. Even if they thought she was a man, was that the right move? Even if she was a man, would that have been the right move? I was in that bathroom with her. I'm extremely feminine. So, even if my friend Bri was trans ... these dudes were willing to bust in the women's room aggressively on someone they knew was definitely a woman.

It's not about protecting children. They just want to fight people and have a reason to "legally" and aggressively force themselves into women's bathrooms.

I think back on that day a lot. I should have immediately viewed these men as the threat they genuinely were and pulled either my canister of cs gas or my lifecard (single Action .22) but I was in shock. And I only had a single action on me. I'm a tall woman. If I defended us, both my friend and I would probably be dead right now. And those guys would have gotten probation for killing us.

Is not about protecting women or kids. Bc those same people think every woman who has reported a sexual assault are "false allegations ruining a man's life" (false allegations are real. But they're very very very rare. )

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 9 points 3 days ago

You know, sometimes I don't realize how good it is around me (central bum fucked egypt) until I read about these experiences. I got a little food truck bazaar near me with the only permanent structure being a stage/wine bar/bathroom. There is only one bathroom, and it has a sign with the classic stick figures, and a half half mix of the two, and an alien that reads "whatever, just wash your hands."

I also see some pride flags in front of businesses downtown and no crazies making the local news by tearing them down.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Yeah if anything these laws gave men the justification to angrily and violently enter women's restrooms. And that's the purpose of them, it's just that shockingly often these men do that against someone they weren't intended to target doing so.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 36 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

So, these men took action—using malicious compliance to prove their point.

Is it malicious compliance? They went to the restroom they were told to go to. It's more a demonstration of what Kansas law actually means.

[–] heliotrope@slrpnk.net 36 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It is. They are complying with the law to the letter with the sole aim of pissing off the lawmakera, and succeeding.

[–] ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

But good-faith compliance would look the same way, wouldn't it? It's not against the spirit of the law, because this is the actual intent of the law.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Good faith compliance is impossible.

Go to the restroom that is not compliant: violate the law.

Go to the restroom compliant with your assigned gender: police is called because you don't look like your assigned gender.

The spirit of the law is to prevent trans people (and anyone else who is not strictly gender conforming) from existing in public spaces.

[–] ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 7 points 3 days ago

Yeah, that's a good point. I was just thinking in terms of the law alone without the broader context.

[–] Doom@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

Good faith compliance (according to the bigots) is to not be trans in public.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The best bathroom I ever used, at a Thai restaurant in Washington DC:

One hallway. Four toilets with doors and full floor-to-ceiling walls that provide total privacy. One row of sinks. I don't care about the genitals of the person in the stall next to me, and I certainly don't care about washing my hands next to them, either.

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Every fucking bathroom should be like that.

I don't think bathrooms should be for fucking. Too dirty.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 129 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (37 children)

If I were in charge bathrooms would be single rooms with nothing but a toilet.

Handwash sink is outside.

There is a person who maintains the facilities and offers a mint candy to only people who wash their hands.

If were gonna police anything in the bathrooms it should be hand washing.

[–] bl4ckp1xx13@lemmy.dbzer0.com 54 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In my secondary school, it was a small school as far as the building went, so to save space they operated exclusively unisex toilets.

The "bathrooms" were simply open-plan onto the main corridors, with sinks on one side, and maybe 15 individual cubicles on the other. There were no urinals, no gendered spaces, once outside the cubicle you'd be in view of anyone walking through the corridor. There were 4 stories including the ground floor, with these unisex toilets on levels 1 and 3.

Never did anything happen, never heard any complaints from anyone about them, it was, dare I say, perfect.

Petition for the abolishment of traditional gendered spaces, individual cubicles is all we need.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (9 children)

I like it, but I would put a urinal in as well. Not because as a male I would appreciate that more, but as a male, I've seen what other savages do to the toilet seat when they have to hit a stationary target from a couple feet away. I don't want to punish sitters with that.

load more comments (9 replies)

a mint candy to only people who wash their hands.

It all goes back to pavlov

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 18 points 3 days ago

Fucking Kings!

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 77 points 3 days ago (13 children)

And you think this would be easily resolved with well designed unisex bathrooms where each stall is completely private.

1000064242

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 32 points 3 days ago (7 children)

where each stall is completely private.

But then what if people do the drugs!??!?!?!

Gotta have those stall gaps to make sure nobody ever gets high.

[–] lemmygarden@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

I thought the gaps were there because it's cheaper to install and easier to clean. The drugs thing is going to happen regardless of gap.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

Clean needle dispensers and needle disposal bins?

[–] Hupf@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Maybe if we installed some flock cameras in the stalls to screen for drug abuse

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] moondoggie@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago

Ally McBeal’s law firm had one like that almost 30 years ago. You’d think there would have been more of them popping up, at least in law firms.

[–] auzy1@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Thats what they did at my climbing Gym (Urban Climb). They're full length cubicles and seem soundproof pretty much.

Gendered bathrooms only triggers homophobes in practice. If you had a unisex bathroom, they wouldn't even notice. And on facebook at least, it always seems to be the people who seem highly abusive, who you wouldn't want near your kids anyway who make a big deal about it.

At concerts here in Australia, nrgptr switching to unisex, it was fairly common for many women to line up for the mens bathrooms (as they they were often less busy)

If your first instinct is that "they're going to rape your kids", the problem is you

[–] lemmygarden@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

They're full length cubicles and seem soundproof pretty much.

Exercise can make people need to poop as it gets stiff moving throughout the body

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The Museum of Sex in NYC has a unisex bathroom similar to this. TBH I'm not sure if it has urinals tucked in it somewhere (since I don't use them, I didn't look for them.) Otherwise, it was one open place without an entry door, with full-length stalls, and communal sinks just like in your diagram.

It also had a temporary exhibit that was a bouncy castle where all the floor and walls were tits. It wasn't as fun as it sounds, though, since if you jumped on a tit you fell through to the hard floor beneath. Still a fun concept! Just needed a little work to make it safer.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 84 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Beginning to suspect these laws exist to criminals the existence of transgender people.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 31 points 3 days ago

Not just transgender -- anybody who doesn't quite conform to gender norms.

A cis man who looks too feminine or a cis woman who looks too masculine will also be a victim of these laws, because people 'suspect' them of being trans.

It ultimately boils down to 'conservatives' trying to enforce gender norms, as they always have: at the point of a gun.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (12 children)

I can kind of understand why places like women's domestic violence shelters and women's prisons need a legal definition of "woman" in order to define who is allowed in them (and have no opinion on what it should be). Places where there is actual physical or logistical infrastructure in place to make sure men don't enter them…

But bathrooms? Someone wanting to commit sex crimes (or similar) against women in bathrooms is just going to walk into them and do exactly that, they aren't going to change their legal gender just to do that because that doesn't make it either easier or harder to physically get in there.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (11 children)

I can kind of understand why places like women’s domestic violence shelters and women’s prisons need a legal definition of “woman” in order to define who is allowed in them

I've found that a lot of these policies are a legacy of affirmative action in response to the historic gulf in wealth between women and men.

They don't exist to keep men out. They exist to give women in abusive relationships a place to go without facing homelessness.

One might argue that gay men and trans-people can find themselves in exactly the same kind of relationships, for exactly the same reasons.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Boozilla@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago
[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 33 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I was waiting for this to happen.
Props to the brave boys for sticking their necks out, when no one would have cared if they used the men's room.

Then again, no one cares what goes on in there :'(

load more comments (1 replies)

Allies and the community never really talk about how trans masculine people in general get targeted. Apparently we aren't worth mentioning until it's too late

[–] fritobugger2017@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

I too enjoy a bit of malicious compliance.

load more comments
view more: next ›