My place of work has some large restrooms labeled “Men” or “Women” and with the usual silhouettes of a figure in pants or a skirt. It also had some single occupancy restrooms labeled with both silhouettes.
Recent it replaced the latter with three silhouettes, the third being a silhouette with pants on the left and a skirt on the right.
The purpose was to promote (or at least announce) inclusivity. The discussion then arose, that by specifically labeling only the single occupancy restrooms that way, one message might be that transgender people were meant to be excluded from the larger restrooms. (This was not the message intended.)
I came down on the side that unless you put up a wordy plaque you weren’t going to satisfy everyone, and some would likely be upset with the necessary explicit statements on such a plaque. Further, a wordy plaque was probably ridiculous to use.
So you’re saying that people have a choice of at least three restrooms/bathrooms/toilets, and there are those who are still complaining about something? It would have been nice if the complainers had gotten their shit together before the first effort to promote/announce inclusivity had been carried out.
I suggest that the company put up signs saying - Toilets, Use At Your Own Risk. Have a nice day.
That’s an interesting point. Why only have the transgender icon on the unified bathroom? If they aren’t excluded from the other restrooms, then the transgender icon should be added to the other signs as well.
As I wondered years ago (on the board too at one point IIRC), why do we have mass bathrooms by gender anyway? Why not just have half the number of individual tiny restrooms and anyone can use one?
To clarify, I’m not really asking what should be done. It’s unlikely they’ll change things now because any change would upset somebody. Mostly my question was directed at transgender, or without trying to come up with a complete list let’s just say anyone who views themselves as anything other than traditional gender, would such a sign make you feel better or worse about the environment?
Adding the 3rd silhouette to the single occupant bathroom was stupid. Should have kept it as it was.
Well, for starters, you’ll only have half the available toilets. My office building has one men’s room and one women’s room. It’s not uncommon for the men’s room to be at max capacity at any point during the day. I suspect the women’s room is similar.
Also, any number of small, individual rooms sounds like a plumber’s nightmare.
I assume the new icon on the third bathroom was not intended to indicate transgender, but was intended to indicate men/women, and to indicate that this bathroom could be used by either men or women. If it was intended to be inclusive to transgender people, it would have been in that since either men or women could use that bathroom, no one could possibly object to transgender people using it, whatever gender you considered them to be. I suppose the idea may have been that any transgender people who were uncomfortable using the specified-gender br would be completely confident in using this one. But naturally, there is some suggestion that perhaps they should only use that br, which would be the opposite message.
Personally I don’t get why single-occupancy brs are ever designated for one specific gender. Different genders routinely share brs in private homes without problems.
First time I encountered the gender-neutral setup with five single-occupancy rooms with both male and female silhouettes on the doors, I had a hard time choosing which one to use. I was so used to having the choice made for me, my brain had a hard time coping when the decision what left to me.
Who is complaining? The OP said that there was discussion as to whether it could lead to complaints. That is a different thing altogether of there actually being complaints. You have very poorly summed up the OP’s question.
The the OP, I have seen those signs from long long ago. They were available in my catalogue to order food service equipment as long ago as 1998. They do not indicate transgender, or anything like that, they indicate only that that bathroom is not assigned to a particular gender. If you are a guy and the guy’s bathroom is full, you can use that one, if you are a woman, and the woman’s room is full, you can use that one.
Not really. The way I’ve seen it implemented in Europe is just like the stalls we have here in the USA except that instead of the flimsy stalls with a gap under them a full grown man could crawl under, they have floor to ceiling, built-in walls. Or, in other words, actual privacy.
Another reason for a third one-holer bathroom with both a male and female pic on the door is for those occasions when a person of one gender needs the assistance of a person of the opposite gender to use the toilet. This could be parent-young child, elderly parent-adult child, husband-wife, two adult partners, or any combination of carer-person needing care.
I used to work in an older office building that had a one-seat handicapped bathroom on each floor separate from the men’s and women’s. I suspect this was to comply with the ADA.
I haven’t noticed anybody transgender or nonbinary answering, so I will hazard an attempt based on doing a lot of trans advocacy work and knowing lots of trans people. I think most would appreciate the indication of an attempt at inclusion. I also think many would notice the absence of the gender neutral symbol (for want of a better term) on the other rest rooms and might wonder if that was meant to be exclusionary, or would at least quickly get the question if somebody else asked it, but would not be quick to assume that this was intentionally exclusionary or problematic. I think most would appreciate attempts to not focus on gender, like generally referring to rest rooms as a rest rooms without specifying genders. Overall my impression has been that folks who are transgender are quicker to acknowledge positive inclusive genders than to complain about exclusions, and tend to go out of their way to be gracious about any well intended efforts.
By the way, at trans events I’ve attended, gender-specific public rest rooms have generally been relabeled as just rest rooms for everybody to use, and I’ve never noticed any problem in the slightest. Shoes in the stalls will be pointed both ways, and it turns out just fine.
They’re just adding a third, unisex bathroom, right? I don’t see how it impacts me or most transgender persons, except positively. Those of us who have transitioned will (almost always) exclusively use the bathroom that corresponds to our gender. Those of us who are newer in the process welcome gender-neutral or unisex spaces, so if we don’t “pass,” we can use the restroom with much less psychodrama.
I can’t think of any transgender person I know of who would view this negatively. It’s giving more options, especially for gender non-conforming persons who may consider themselves to be “none of the above” or “both of the above.”
