Restroom doors

Do you find ADA regulations that facilitate bathroom access compelling, or not compelling?

Do you find ADA regulations requiring specific accessibility signage compelling, or not compelling?

Do you find laws requiring restaurants to have a bathroom to be compelling, or not compelling?

If you find those regulations compelling, how is that materially different from standard signage indicating which room covers the appropriate expected behavior?

So when I was in law school we were taught that Rational Basis was basically a slam dunk for the state (such that when the Supreme Court ruled against a state on the basis of Rational Basis recently, I think on LGBTQ issues, a lot of lawyers were shocked). Any state could demonstrate a law was rationally related to the state’s interests. State’s interests are very very broad.

Anyways, I agree with most people here that saying that easily decipherable bathroom signage would easily fall under rational basis. The state has an interest in making sure it’s citizens can discern which bathroom they need to use in a timely manner, and no court in the country would rule against the state for that.

I find 1 and 3 compelling. I’m not sure what is covered by 2, so I have no opinion. Having working plumbing that’s accessible to customers seems far more important than having signage that can be immediately interpreted. Especially as, as best as I can tell, no state requires restaurants to have signage telling you approximately where the restrooms might be. Once you leave it open to “you probably need to ask an employee” I don’t see why it’s an overwhelming burden that you might need to ask an employee for more details.

That doesn’t mean I think laws covering signage would be illegal or anything. ISiddiqui’s argument seems compelling to me. Such laws just seem unnecessary to me.

I always assumed ‘uni’ to mean universal.

Still refers to the room though?

All this reminds me of when I took my wife to Paris in the 80s. She needed a wee so I took her into a department store, just as I would in London.

We found the entrance and handed over a few Franks to an old woman sitting at a table by the door. In return, we were given a small towel each. So far so good, but once past the sentry, my wife was disconcerted to find that she had to pass behind a row of men using the urinal to get to a WC.

I remember non-gendered single occupancy restrooms going back to the 90s , too. But I actually remember something little more specific- the single occupancy restrooms were only non-gendered if there was just one of them. Once there were two rooms, they were marked either for “men” or “women”. And saw this until fairly recently. There must have been some previous law that required that if there were multiple single occupancy rooms, they had to be labeled by gender. Although I never could figure out why anyone would care if a single user restroom was gender neutral.

I concur, there is no reason for them- by themselves. Have the accepted symbol and then the cutesy sign, if you must.

I have seen that and I thought it worked.

Anecdote I remember reading from many years back (so sorry, I can’t give a cite): There was a large ranch in far north-east California, where the population density is in the neighborhood of 1 person / county. And a ranch house on the ranch, where one ranch hand lived.

So a Cal-OSHA inspector showed up one day, and cited the place because there was only one bathroom in the house, and not two separate bathrooms, one M and one F.

The rule was, in those ancient benighted times, that there MUST be separate bathrooms for males and females, and a single single-use bathroom was not good enough. The logic seemed to be to protect people (mostly females, I suspect) from picking up cooties from the toilet after it was used by the opposite sex.

So this would have required a big change in attitudes about public health to allow a single-use bathroom to be used by males and females as is common today. We now seem to understand that the cooties you can pick up from toilet seats are completely pan-gender.

I’m sitting at home, not looking at a sign but I would have interpreted that as No Hiking. Camping is usually denoted by a triangular tent and I would expect to find No Camping at a spot where one would be tempted to pitch a tent rather than the trailhead.

I’ll concede the message would have been better conveyed if the hiker lacked a backpack.

I have seen that too (single-occupancy johns marked “men” or “women”). But I never saw anyone pay attention to the signs. And who would complain? Everyone drank beer and everybody had to wait in the same line.

The Don’t Walk lights at pedestrian crossings are pretty unambiguous.

I’ve seen it many times where, actually, the women did wait in the line for the one marked women. I tend to be the one to break ranks and go for the men’s.

It’s not just that women don’t really want to go in the men’s loos, it’s that sometimes there’s a single occupancy stall for women and the one for men has a urinal or two in addition to the stall. And most women don’t want to walk in one men with their dicks out, and most men - or at least a sizable number of men (heh) - don’t want women doing that either.

Also, if you need the sanitary product bin, you have to wait for the women’s loo.

Sometimes it definitely is simply not wanting to use the “wrongly-gendered” loo though. Men sometimes avoid that as well as women even if you open the door and show them that the facilities are identical.