I know we’ve been over this before even in this thread, but the refusal to discuss that is the trolliest aspect of the transphobes here. There really aren’t any alternatives for what people should do right now except use one or another restroom, or stay at home in places with only dual restrooms. It’s a really simple question.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Doncha mean the Spanish Inkquisition?
…I’ll go sit in the corner now
Actually I think I’ve reversed my position and have come to the conclusion that this is the way to go. It might be uncomfortable or inconvenient but that is the price we way for our choices. People shouldn’t have to go into a restroom where there might be people who make them uncomfortable. If you don’t want to go into a restroom where there might be a transgendered person no one is forcing you, you can always hold it until you get home.
We’ve got Republicans literally calling for book-burnings, and you’re still on this nonsense about how liberals want to stifle free thought. Your hive-mind membership is fully intact.
That reminds me,
Please @octopus, tell us the words you want to use to discuss this issue but can’t?
@octopus has never been interested in actual free speech – only attacking liberals. He’s always ignored right-wing attempts to stifle free speech. He’s just a lying troll.
Well, it was an interesting thread. I’m out.
I’m seeing a problem with this plan.
Could you expand? I didn’t think there was anything blatantly wrong with it but I didn’t give it a whole lot of thought so it’s very possibly I missed some obvious flaw.
We’re not talking about mere disagreement here. We’re talking about people who not only disagree with the self-identification of other people but want to enact laws to force those other people to comply with their views. We call those people oppressors because that’s what they are.
I’ll use the analogy of racism again. If you want to believe black people are inferior, you have a legal right to do so. But if you start acting on that belief, by doing things like forbidding them to vote or go to public schools or use a bathroom or marry white people or work a job or live in a neighborhood, then you should not only be castigated but stopped.
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious when I pointed it out.
Your plan is to have a third “separate but equal” bathroom where a trans woman who doesn’t want to share a bathroom with a cis woman can go or a cis woman who doesn’t want to share a bathroom with a trans woman can go. But it’s the same bathroom. So you will inevitably have a trans woman going in and finding a cis woman there and vice versa.
That point must have been lost in the editing. My intent was for this third bathroom to be a single occupant bathroom. I did say this, which comes from that premise: “The point being that we aren’t separating out trans people, just people that don’t want to use either of the multi occupant bathrooms.”
I had considered the possibility of single occupant bathrooms but it didn’t seem to apply here. If there are single occupant bathrooms, why designate them at all? The only time when who can enter a bathroom is an issue is when multiple people can be in it at the same time.
I don’t want to get too deep into a not-well-thought-out hijack, but the idea was that it would be a single occupant bathroom in addition to traditional, multi-occupant men’s and women’s bathrooms. If a business only has single occupant bathrooms, this is all moot.
I’ve been in a number of establishments that had single separate single occupancy men’s rooms and single occupancy women’s room, which always seemed to me to be a bit pointless and inefficient.
We had that in my college commons - single occupancy restrooms that were gendered. Somebody realized that was really silly, and before I graduated, that was changed.
It certainly made things more efficient - why there should be a line at one and not the other made no sense at all.
I think, from observation and (usually drunken) deduction, that this phenomenon is based on the age old “seat up/seat down” dichotomy.
Which I neatly solve by putting the seat and the lid down, so people of each preference need to touch at least one of the two.
It used to be legally required; probably as a result of establishments that, many years ago, provided nowhere for women to piss, or one women’s room in an awkward location and men’s rooms all over. Laws are changing, some of them in the right direction:
For decades, the law required any employer with more than 15 employees to provide gender-segregated facilities for men and women, and that these facilities must be specifically designated for male or female use.
Thankfully, OSHA recently updated their requirements to accommodate a diverse workplace. They allow (and even encourage) two additional options (unisex) to the traditional male/female segregated bathroom. In full compliance with OHSA regulations, employers may:
- designate additional single-occupancy bathrooms as gender-neutral for use by all their employees, or
- install multi-occupant, gender-neutral restroom facilities with lockable single occupant stalls.
Same with my work. They don’t have gender designations anymore.
They never needed them in the first place. It’s also better now, less chance that the one you are allowed to use is occupied.