# The lance strongarm transgender bathroom and poly marriage extravaganza thread! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 5, 2016, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244 "2016-04-05T11:31:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/641 "2016-06-06T23:01:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Not that I can think of. > > I’ve said this many, many times. Probably dozens of times. I’m pretty sure you’ve even asked me something like this before and I responded by saying “I’ve said this exact thing many, many times already”. I don’t care if bathrooms are gendered or unisex. I want trans people to be protected, in whatever bathroom system society decides upon. I know you’ve said it. What I don’t get it why you care so much about transgender women (for instance) getting into the women’s room and away from men, and then turning around and saying it doesn’t matter if they go to the bathroom with men - unisex restrooms are fine with you. What’s the point? If we don’t need gendered restrooms, why care if transgender people use one or the other? Won’t they be just as vulnerable to harm in a unisex bathroom as a gendered one? > [@](#): > > Not necessarily, but believe that transmen are not men, and transwomen are not women, is bigoted against trans people. So not wanting to pee with a transwwman (but being fine with peeing next to a cis woman) is bigoted, in my opinion. That doesn’t follow. Why can’t I just prefer not to pee with a female, regardless of gender? What if I don’t care about gender, only sex? It has nothing to do with transgender people or how I feel about them. (This is just speaking hypothetically for those not paying attention) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/642 "2016-06-06T23:10:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I know you’ve said it. What I don’t get it why you care so much about transgender women (for instance) getting into the women’s room and away from men, and then turning around and saying it doesn’t matter if they go to the bathroom with men - unisex restrooms are fine with you. > > What’s the point? > > If we don’t need gendered restrooms, why care if transgender people use one or the other? Won’t they be just as vulnerable to harm in a unisex bathroom as a gendered one? Because I have no expectation that gendered bathrooms will change. I think that’s what almost everyone wants, and I’m fine with it, and so I think the best real world way to help protect trans people is within this practice that isn’t changing soon. And if I’m wrong, then I’m fine with that. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t follow. Why can’t I just prefer not to pee with a female, regardless of gender? What if I don’t care about gender, only sex? It has nothing to do with transgender people or how I feel about them. (This is just speaking hypothetically for those not paying attention) Then, in my mind, you’re bigoted due to either ignorance (not understanding gender) or callousness (having no regard for the feelings of trans people). But I care about actions, not feelings, so if someone quietly has bigoted feelings but doesn’t act on them, then I have no beef with them. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/643 "2016-06-06T23:38:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Because I have no expectation that gendered bathrooms will change. I think that’s what almost everyone wants, and I’m fine with it, and so I think the best real world way to help protect trans people is within this practice that isn’t changing soon. But if this is the system that protects them, how can you not oppose changing it? Wouldn’t that remove the protection? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2016, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/644 "2016-06-06T23:44:47Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But if this is the system that protects them, how can you not oppose changing it? Wouldn’t that remove the protection? No. If most people preferred unisex bathrooms, then the best real world solution would be protecting trans people in unisex bathrooms. > [@](#): > > That makes no sense whatsoever. My understanding of gender is irrellevant to this. I may simply prefer not to pee with people of the opposite sex. Is that any more irrational than not wanting to pee with members of the opposite gender? What’s the difference in this situation? Why is one bigoted and the other perfectly acceptable? You might prefer not to pee next to certain skin tones, regardless of race, but it’s still bigoted. If unisex bathrooms were the norm, then maybe it would be bigoted to not want to pee next to the opposite sex or gender. But in present American society, gendered bathrooms are the norm, and in the context of our society and culture, such feelings with regards to gender are probably not bigoted. And again, I’m not worried about bigoted feelings, only bigoted actions. I don’t care about feelings alone. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/645 "2016-06-07T00:00:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No. If most people preferred unisex bathrooms, then the best real world solution would be protecting trans people in unisex bathrooms. THEN WHY CAN"T WE DO THAT NOW? Why does protecting trans people require putting them in a different bathroom? Why, if we could do that anyway if they were in unisex bathrooms, can’t we do that now? I’m not talking about their preferences here, of course - they may simply feel more comfortable in a room of their gender. Of course they do. I support that. But you’re talking about protecting them from harm. > [@](#): > > You might prefer not to pee next to certain skin tones, regardless of race, but it’s still bigoted. So: Prefer certain race = bigoted Prefer certain sex = bigoted Prefer certain gender = perfectly fine. Why? > [@](#): > > If unisex bathrooms were the norm, then maybe it would be bigoted to not want to pee next to the opposite sex or gender. But in present American society, gendered bathrooms are the norm, and in the context of our society and culture, such feelings with regards to gender are probably not bigoted. You’re above such a ridiculous circular argument. I could easily use the same argument to defend keeping trans people out of restrooms - or even, back the day, to defend Jim Crow. Come on, you can do better than this. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/646 "2016-06-07T09:58:05Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > THEN WHY CAN"T WE DO THAT NOW? > > Why does protecting trans people require putting them in a different bathroom? Why, if we could do that anyway if they were in unisex bathrooms, can’t we do that now? We certainly can. Why do you keep assuming I believe the opposite of what I say? I don’t care either way. I certainly won’t oppose society if most people decide unisex bathrooms are better. I don’t think that’s likely, but it wouldn’t bother me at all if it occurs. It also wouldn’t bother me at all if it doesn’t. In my mind, society is no better or worse with unisex bathrooms vs gendered bathrooms, as long as trans people are protected. > [@](#): > > So: > > Prefer certain race = bigoted > Prefer certain sex = bigoted > Prefer certain gender = perfectly fine. > > Why? > > You’re above such a ridiculous circular argument. I could easily use the same argument to defend keeping trans people out of restrooms - or even, back the day, to defend Jim Crow. Come on, you can do better than this. It’s a good response, but gendered bathrooms are fundamentally different in that they don’t cause harm, which is why that argument doesn’t work for segregation. But these are just feelings. I really don’t care about feelings, bigoted or not. I put about 2 seconds of thought into these feelings, because I care so little about them. I care about actions and harm, not about feelings. People can have as many bigoted feelings as they like as long as they don’t do any bigoted actions. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/647 "2016-06-07T10:38:42Z")
I don’t understand why you’re still trying, **iiandyiiii**. You’re just repeating yourself at this point. The guy cannot understand that segregation is acceptable if both sides are okay with it. That if no one harms anyone else over it, unlike the trans people who have been physically assaulted over the issue, then you can’t argue that it’s harmful. All of his questions have answers, and you’ve given them. I don’t see how repeating them will help. But, hey, if you enjoy talking to a brick wall, have fun. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/648 "2016-06-07T10:58:46Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t understand why you’re still trying, **iiandyiiii**. You’re just repeating yourself at this point. The guy cannot understand that segregation is acceptable if both sides are okay with it. That if no one harms anyone else over it, unlike the trans people who have been physically assaulted over the issue, then you can’t argue that it’s harmful. > > All of his questions have answers, and you’ve given them. I don’t see how repeating them will help. But, hey, if you enjoy talking to a brick wall, have fun. Don’t worry, I only post when it’s something I enjoy talking about. And since we’re in our own little thread, no one should be bothered by it. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/649 "2016-06-07T12:43:22Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The guy cannot understand that segregation is acceptable if both sides are okay with it. What percentage of either side would need to NOT be okay with it before you would change your position on segregation? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/650 "2016-06-07T13:06:13Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t understand why you’re still trying, **iiandyiiii**. You’re just repeating yourself at this point. The guy cannot understand that segregation is acceptable if both sides are okay with it. You mean like separate but equal? You mean that if blacks as well as whites oppose school segregation, we should respect that? [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/07/why-some-black-families-led-the-charge-against-school-desegregation/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/07/why-some-black-families-led-the-charge-against-school-desegregation/) How about this case where many blacks oppose desegregation - is it okay because both sides are happy with it? > **[Mississippi town’s views on desegregation ruling aren’t so black and white | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/us/cleveland-mississippi-school-desegregation/)** > > Many in Cleveland, Mississippi – black and white alike – don’t see the need for a federal ruling forcing the town to integrate its schools. And hey, maybe 99.9% of the population was okay with segregation by sex, rather than gender, in bathrooms, and okay with excluding transgender people. Did that make it okay? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/651 "2016-06-07T13:12:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We certainly can. We can? But you said the reason for putting transgender people in a certain restroom was to protect them. Now you say that’s not necessary. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that’s likely, but it wouldn’t bother me at all if it occurs. It also wouldn’t bother me at all if it doesn’t. In my mind, society is no better or worse with unisex bathrooms vs gendered bathrooms, as long as trans people are protected. So if we go to unisex bathrooms, you’ll have to figure out a new way to protect them. All your efforts to protect them will come to naught. What will that new way be? And why not use it now? > [@](#): > > It’s a good response, but gendered bathrooms are fundamentally different in that they don’t cause harm, which is why that argument doesn’t work for segregation. How do racially segregated bathrooms cause harm? > [@](#): > > But these are just feelings. I really don’t care about feelings, bigoted or not. I put about 2 seconds of thought into these feelings, because I care so little about them. I care about actions and harm, not about feelings. People can have as many bigoted feelings as they like as long as they don’t do any bigoted actions. Then when you answer the question above, remember not to say anything about feelings, only actual harm. How is anyone actually harmed by racially segregated restrooms? Their feelings, remember, are irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/652 "2016-06-07T14:14:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > We can? But you said the reason for putting transgender people in a certain restroom was to protect them. Now you say that’s not necessary. No, I didn’t say that. That’s the reason to allow trans people to use gendered bathrooms matching their gender identity within a gendered bathroom custom. If we had different customs, then we’d probably need different practices to protect trans people. > [@](#): > > So if we go to unisex bathrooms, you’ll have to figure out a new way to protect them. All your efforts to protect them will come to naught. What will that new way be? And why not use it now? Why would I want to “use it now” if it wouldn’t fit the customs of society, since society currently prefers a different system? I want trans people protected within the current society’s bathroom customs. I have no preference between the custom of gendered vs unisex bathrooms. > [@](#): > > How do racially segregated bathrooms cause harm? Because access and facilities were unequal. This already happened and was argued over. > [@](#): > > Then when you answer the question above, remember not to say anything about feelings, only actual harm. How is anyone actually harmed by racially segregated restrooms? Their feelings, remember, are irrelevant. Racially segregated restrooms existed for many years, with unequal access, and unequal facilities. They caused harm to many people. I’m unaware of any similar harm for gendered restrooms, which have been around for much longer and much more widespread than racially segregated restrooms were. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/653 "2016-06-07T14:23:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, I didn’t say that. That’s the reason to allow trans people to use gendered bathrooms matching their gender identity within a gendered bathroom custom. If we had different customs, then we’d probably need different practices to protect trans people. They aren’t "gendered’ bathrooms, they’re “sexed” bathrooms - or so that is the custom. Citing custom doesn’t work here. You’re defying a custom, not upholding it. > [@](#): > > Why would I want to “use it now” if it wouldn’t fit the customs of society, since society currently prefers a different system? I want trans people protected within the current society’s bathroom customs. I have no preference between the custom of gendered vs unisex bathrooms. Because you say you only care about harm and nothing else. > [@](#): > > Because access and facilities were unequal. This already happened and was argued over. So if they had been made equal, it would be okay? If whites and blacks had the exact same restrooms of the same quality and size, segregation by race would be okay? > [@](#): > > I’m unaware of any similar harm for gendered restrooms, which have been around for much longer and much more widespread than racially segregated restrooms were. You’ve never heard of “potty parity?” Women have to wait in long lines for their restrooms sometimes while men enjoy shorter lines. They are harmed by that exclusion. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/654 "2016-06-07T14:59:14Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > They aren’t "gendered’ bathrooms, they’re “sexed” bathrooms - or so that is the custom. Citing custom doesn’t work here. You’re defying a custom, not upholding it. They’ve always been gendered bathrooms. Maybe they were sexed bathrooms too. And yes, we’re defying a custom by openly tolerating trans people, but that’s because to do otherwise would cause harm. > [@](#): > > Because you say you only care about harm and nothing else. In the present real world, the best strategy to avoid harm, as far as I can tell, is to allow trans people to use bathrooms per modern custom (in this case, gendered bathrooms) without threat. Changing to unisex bathrooms seems like a strategy with a much, much lower chance of success. Unless society changes their preference at large – which I’d be totally fine with, though I see no reason to push for it since it doesn’t seem superior in any way. > [@](#): > > So if they had been made equal, it would be okay? > > If whites and blacks had the exact same restrooms of the same quality and size, segregation by race would be okay? Based on the historical evidence, that was not possible. > [@](#): > > You’ve never heard of “potty parity?” Women have to wait in long lines for their restrooms sometimes while men enjoy shorter lines. They are harmed by that exclusion. If this is caused by unequal facilities, then that’s harm, and I’d definitely be open to looking into it and either changing facilities or even changing customs. But if it’s caused by biology, then there’s nothing that can be done about it that I can think of. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/655 "2016-06-07T18:01:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They’ve always been gendered bathrooms. Maybe they were sexed bathrooms too. Not “maybe.” Before the transgender issue, there was no difference. Nobody imagined (other than transgender people of course) that there could be a difference. > [@](#): > > And yes, we’re defying a custom by openly tolerating trans people, but that’s because to do otherwise would cause harm. So stop appealing to custom while you argue for breaking custom. > [@](#): > > Based on the historical evidence, that was not possible. That’s a copout. What if they were? What if we did that today? > [@](#): > > If this is caused by unequal facilities, then that’s harm, and I’d definitely be open to looking into it and either changing facilities or even changing customs. But if it’s caused by biology, then there’s nothing that can be done about it that I can think of. Biology? You’re saying biology rules and there’s nothing we can or should do about that in a discussion about transgender people? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/656 "2016-06-07T18:08:29Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Not “maybe.” Before the transgender issue, there was no difference. Nobody imagined (other than transgender people of course) that there could be a difference. Maybe, but irrelevant to my points. > [@](#): > > So stop appealing to custom while you argue for breaking custom. I’m willing to push against custom when it causes harm – but gendered bathrooms cause no harm, so I see no reason to push against it. I don’t believe unisex bathrooms cause harm either, so I wouldn’t push against that. > [@](#): > > That’s a copout. What if they were? What if we did that today? We have tons of history to look back on. Every time we did racial segregation in bathrooms, it was unequal and caused harm. For decades and centuries. I would strongly oppose its return on this basis. Isn’t this logical and reasonable? We also have tons of history to look back on for gendered bathrooms. They never caused harm, except when associated with other, harmful things (like racial segregation, or discrimination against trans people). So I don’t push against something that I see as neutral when it comes to harm. > [@](#): > > Biology? You’re saying biology rules and there’s nothing we can or should do about that in a discussion about transgender people? No, I’m not saying that. Why bother trying to put words into my mouth, when you’ve failed at it so often? I’m saying that if longer wait times in ladies’ rooms are result of biology, then I’m not sure how that could be fixed. I’m certainly open to ideas. Of course, for me to seriously evaluate these ideas, they’d have to come from women who have experienced the problem and want to make changes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/657 "2016-06-07T18:11:49Z")
Bottom line – I see no way in which unisex bathrooms better protect trans people, or provide any other superior outcome, than gendered bathrooms. I also see no way in which they are worse. So I focus on the harm. I think the way to prevent harm with the greatest likelihood of success does not include pushing for a change from gendered bathrooms to unisex bathrooms. I believe that any possible solution pushing for this change is less likely to succeed than a solution that doesn’t push for this change, unless and until public opinion changes significantly and prefers unisex bathrooms over gendered bathrooms. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/658 "2016-06-07T18:40:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We have tons of history to look back on. Every time we did racial segregation in bathrooms, it was unequal and caused harm. For decades and centuries. I would strongly oppose its return on this basis. Isn’t this logical and reasonable? What if a group of blacks and whites decided they both want segregated restrooms, and both say they wouldn’t be harmed by it? Would you oppose it? > [@](#): > > We also have tons of history to look back on for gendered bathrooms. For sexed bathrooms, you mean. > [@](#): > > No, I’m not saying that. Why bother trying to put words into my mouth, when you’ve failed at it so often? I’m saying that if longer wait times in ladies’ rooms are result of biology, then I’m not sure how that could be fixed. I’m certainly open to ideas. Of course, for me to seriously evaluate these ideas, they’d have to come from women who have experienced the problem and want to make changes. You fix it by making the women’s room bigger. Separate, but unequal. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244/659 "2016-06-07T19:04:51Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > What if a group of blacks and whites decided they both want segregated restrooms, and both say they wouldn’t be harmed by it? Would you oppose it? Yes. I’d listen, but I’d certainly be incredibly skeptical. Wouldn’t you? > [@](#): > > For sexed bathrooms, you mean. Is this your new thing? No, I mean gendered bathrooms. Maybe they’re sexed also, but I don’t care about that. > [@](#): > > You fix it by making the women’s room bigger. > > Separate, but unequal. If this is a real problem, then I’d be open to evaluating such a solution, and I’d be interested in hearing what women have to say about it (assuming that there aren’t already differences in bathroom sizes). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lance-strongarm-transgender-bathroom-and-poly-marriage-extravaganza-thread/751244.md?page=32)