I’m probably speaking a foreign language here, but a concept known as “public health and sanitation” applies."
Has any US court ruled that it isn’t? Because that’s the operating principle here. The legislature doesn’t need the court’s permission to pass laws. The court wouldn’t get involved unless someone were dumb enough to file suit complaining that the state has no interest in public health, which AFAIK hasn’t happened.
How would a rule requiring strict gender separation of restrooms (and hence, strict door labeling requirements) prevent at least some users of restrooms from pissing on the floor?
Some posts somewhere above mentioned that a square might also be a symbol for the male place. I guess the sex-stereotyped notion is that circles, being rounded, are “feminine”, while either squares or triangles, being angular, are “masculine”.
Anyone here ever done square dancing? Square dancing instructions quite regularly depict males with squares and females with circles. Other forms of dancing (e.g., contra) may do likewise, e.g.,
(Although, sooprize sooprize, in googling for an image to post here, I came up with another one that uses exactly the opposite.)
And I have been to square and contra dances where it was “armbands/no armbands”. (I haven’t seen the drawings; but we were probably being more casual about it in general.)
Public health and sanitation, yes. Whether the sign says “Men”, “Cowboys”, or “Vaqueros”, is probably not a compelling state interest.
As you pointed out, the test is not “compelling state interest”, it is “rationally demonstrable state interest.”
Yeah, but so long as the place has restrooms, and they work, why does the state care at all if they have silly signs on the door? I routinely need to ask where the restrooms are, it’s not as if there are standards for restroom visibility.
Avoiding “I goofed” cover for Peeping Tom’s may well be rational interest enough. It’s also not like legislatures pre-clear all their work with SCOTUS under a strict scrutiny standard before enacting it. If they did we would not have our country filled with prohibitions against saggy pants, or against buying booze on Sundays but not on Mondays.
We standardize within pretty tight limits the appearance of highway signs and traffic signals. We standardize the size and shape of the nutritional information box on Froot Loops™, despite them lacking anything resembling actual nutrition. Etc., etc., Surely we can find it within the broad regulatory reach of the Feds or any state to standardize the size, shape, and location of gender-specific (or anything goes) signage at restrooms.
Many people can probably agree with you @D_Anconia that the government has better things to do with its time and our money. But insisting that somehow it’s far beyond some legal / constitutional pale simply shows you’re living in some alternate fantasy world where some flavor of rightist libertarianism is the only political philosophy in the US. Hint: it isn’t. Nor should it be.
See also
Ah, yes, that was really my position, disagreeing with whoever said upthread that those signs ought to be legislated. Not only do i agree that us governments could regulate the signs, I’m pretty sure I’ve even read a rant somewhere (probably here) about some restaurant having to pay a lot to remake its restroom signs to comply with some ridiculously strict rule. Size and color of font were specified, iirc. And people brought up the silly signs in that thread, too.
The state has established standards of accessibility signage under the Americans with Disabilities act to include restroom signs:
Regarding this subtopic here, obviously the ADA itself would not apply to the plain labeling of restroom genders. But if the state has demonstrated an interest in mandating clear signage to help the disabled more easily use the facility, that rationale should easily transfer to assist anyone who can’t decipher ‘buoys and gulls’ or ‘caballeros y vacas’, whether because they’re not great with English, or with literacy in general, or just can’t puzzle out stupid puns. None of that should impede someone from going potty.
The state regulates OSHA safety signage, trains, highways, all sorts of signage to help society function more smoothly. There’s ample precedent. Going to the bathroom is sometimes an emergency… if the state can mandate standards for emergency exit signs (which it does), then it can justifiably mandate clearer toilet signage.
I had started to post something right after @puzzlegal that substantially matched @HMS_Irruncible just above. The I got called away for an hour and he snuck in.
But he did a much better job than I would have, with real cites and everything. Bravo Good Sir!
Thanks to you for some of the ideas.
Edited to add: I’ll clarify that I don’t care if restaurants put stupid pictures or signs on their doors. That’s protected expression. But it should not be the sole indication of that room’s purpose, which should be unambiguously designated by standard signage.
Presumably standard signs that comply with ADA and other requirements are easily available at office supply stores, big-box hardware stores and restaurant supply stores. It would probably be cheaper to buy them than to design and make cute custom signs that are ambiguous so there’s no reason the signs need to be confusing.
There was a bar in Ireland in one of the Matt Scudder novels that had that signage, but both doors led into the same farm field.
This thread certainly went down the shitter. Which one, I’m not sure.
@Gatopescado: And now, gasping and gagging, it’s coming back up for air.
Excellent! 
That was my mistake. I shouldn’t have used the word compelling. I still don’t agree that there’s a “rationally demonstrable state interest” to regulate"buoys and gulls" on restroom signage.
The feds think there is a rationally demonstrable state interest in regulating restroom signage. The ADA. Put whatever cute, clever, catchy, capitalistically themed signage you want, as long as ADA compliant universal signage is also there.
Poor English and inability to puzzle out stupid puns are certainly not covered by the ADA. Even illiteracy is only covered in cases of a learning disability, or another physical or mental impairment. Social, cultural, and/or economic disadvantages that lead to illiteracy are not.