The Biggest Obstacle to Gender Neutral Bathrooms? Building Codes.

Government went beyond mandating that employers give workers a place to do their business to specifying exactly how and in what ratios this must occur.

hradcanska/Flickrhradcanska/FlickrLately, the transgender community’s push for more gender-neutral public restrooms has drawn a fair amount of attention, support, and criticism. I’ve been sympathetic to many sides of the debate. Of course transgender individuals should be able to use facilities for the gender which they live and identify as; and the creation of more unisex bathrooms seems, in general, like a good move. But providing unisex restrooms shouldn't be compulsory—there are both logistical and ideological reasons why businesses might oppose. Gender segregation is a long-established, common-sense norm in bathroom design... or is it? It turns out our views of traditional restroom delineation may be much like our views of traditional marriage: A myth.

Public restrooms have not always been gender segregated. "Historically, shared public latrines have been a feature of most communities, and this continues to be true in developing countries such as Ghana, China, and India," note Olga Gershenson and Barbara Penner in Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender.

"Private, sex-segregated lavoratories were a modern and Western European invention, bound up with urbanization, the rise of sanitary reform, the privatization of the bodily functions, and the gendered ideology of separate spheres."

According to sociology and sexuality studies professor Sheila Cavanagh, the first separate toilet facilities for men and women appeared at a ball in Paris in 1739. Until then, public restrooms, such as they existed, were generally gender neutral or marked for men only. The earliest efforts to legislate gender segregation in the United States were due to a lack of women’s facilities in workplaces.

In 1887, Massachusetts was the first state to pass a law mandating women's restrooms in workplaces with female employees. As far as I can tell, this was a pretty good idea; factories and other places that had begun to employ women were refusing to install restrooms for them. Perhaps the job market would have corrected itself eventually, but in the mean time working ladies had to pee.

By the 1920s, most states had passed similar laws. That all seems relatively fine, but the problem happened when the government went beyond merely mandating that employers give all employees a place to do their business to specifying exactly how and in what ratios this must occur, in and out of the workplace. 

Alan/FlickrAlan/Flickr

These days, America’s public restrooms are regulated by two separate federal agencies. Workplace restrooms are the purview of the U.S. Department of Labor, which sets state guidelines through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Non-workplace public restroom guidelines are governed, broadly, by the Department of Health and Human Services.

More specific regulations are largely enacted though through state and municipal building codes. These codes dictate exactly how many toilets and/or urinals that buildings, businesses, and other public entities must provide, based on occupancy capacity. And they mandate not only the existence of separate men’s and women’s bathrooms but also how many "fixtures"(toilets or urinals) must exist for each. 

"Restrooms are still almost exclusively gendered," writes Suzanne LaBarre Shaunacy Ferro at Fast Company. "It's a form of exclusion that's written into state building code, presenting an obstacle for gender neutral bathroom advocates."

In many places, businesses are legally prohibited from offering only gender-neutral restrooms. A small restaurant, coffee shop, or bar with only two (separate, enclosed) toilets must designate one for women and one for men. New York City only made it permissible in 2012 for restaurants and coffee shops with just two water closets to make these unisex, and only then for places with a total occupancy of 30 or fewer. (Washington, D.C., is one of the few places where it's actually illegal to designate single-occupancy restrooms as male- or female-use only.) 

Michael Coghlan/FlickrMichael Coghlan/Flickr

"Even in public spaces, such as restaurants, where two single occupancy, self enclosed toilet facilities are all that is provided to customers, signs designate one 'Stallions' and the other 'Fillies,' one 'Pointers' and the other 'Setters,' or, more prosaically, one 'Ladies' and the other 'Gents,'" writes University of Chicago law professor Mary Ann Case, in a 2010 article titled "Why Not Abolish the ‘Laws of Urinary Segregation’?"

Most state and local bathroom building codes are modeled on one of a few sets of international guidelines, such as the Uniform Plumbing Code or the International Building Code (IBC). On a broad level, these codes tend to require that all buildings have restrooms and that all occupants be allowed to use them. 

Pursuant to these codes and state "potty parity" laws, public places are required not only to offer gender-segregated facilities but to offer a certain number of men’s and women’s "fixtures" depending on building/business size and type. For purposes of the fixture count rules, a building's total occupancy is considered to be half male and half female (i.e., a 100-person occupancy concert venue would be required to base bathrooms around an assumption of 50 men and 50 women). 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Of course transgender individuals should be able to use facilities for the gender which they live and identify as; and the creation of more unisex bathrooms seems, in general, like a good move. But providing unisex restrooms shouldn't be compulsory...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    WELL WHICH IS IT?

  • John||

    It will be compulsory. Transvestites are the next front in the culture war now that gay marriage is over. They will have rights and those rights will require everyone to have gender neutral bathrooms.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't support compulsory requirements either way, and don't really care whether bathrooms are gender segregated or unisex, but if you read the article, such a change would only be a change in what is being made mandatory. There are already laws in many places requiring gender-segregated restrooms in privately owned establishments.

  • John||

    Sure. And those laws can be ruled unconstitutional and thrown out. Also, other laws can be passed requiring unisex bathrooms. If they aren't, a judge can just rule that the 14th Amendment requires all public accommodations to have gender neutral bathrooms.

    We have long since entangled public accommodations with the 14th Amendment. It is not a very large step to say you must provide accommodation for transvestites and to do that you must have gender neutral bathrooms. Denying anyone entrance into any bathroom they choose will just be made illegal for anyone who runs a public accommodation.

    This is going to be the next front in the culture war. My guess is that the Progs will win. I can see no reason why they can't and no reason why Reason won't cheer them on when they do so.

  • Calidissident||

    My point was that, to me, it doesn't really matter which way the laws mandate, they shouldn't exist.

  • John||

    I would agree with you. I really can't see why the law should be involved. Understand though that it will be. What starts as "hey lets repeal the laws requiring this" will quickly turn into "lets make gender identity a protected class like sex and race and sexual preference". Then all public bathrooms will be required by law to be unisex. That is the end state for the Progs and that is where this will end in a few years. The people who object to it will be called bigots and told to leave the public square.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Maybe if someone holds a brick over your head and drops it, it "shouldn't" smack your head with a loud, resounding thump. But shouldn't or not, I guarantee that it will. Trust me on this one.

  • Calidissident||

    Apparently the existence of a particular human law is now equivalent to gravity?

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    If they aren't, a judge can just rule that the 14th Amendment requires all public accommodations to have gender neutral bathrooms.

    At first blush I thought, "What the hell is this moron talking about?" Then I remembered the success of the "separate but equal isn't equal" argument.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "a judge can just rule that the 14th Amendment requires all public accommodations to have gender neutral bathrooms."

    The 14th Amendment does not apply to public accommodations, it only applies to state actors, regulations on public accommodations concerning discrimination come from statutes like the Civil Rights Act.

  • John||

    Once someone becomes a "protected class" it applies to everyone effectively. At that point the laws that say you can't discriminate against blacks are effectively amended to include the new protected class.

    You may not agree with that. That is however what will happen.

  • Calidissident||

    John, you're missing his argument. The public accommodations laws regarding private businesses were justified under the commerce clause, not the 14th amendment.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is hard to keep thinking John is an actual lawyer. He conflates two easily distinct things:

    The 14th Amendment bars unequal protection of the law by state actors. Some groups have been ruled to trigger strict scrutiny when state actors treat them differently based on their group membership.

    Civil rights statutes (like the CRA) prohibit discrimination, and they reach to private businesses deemed 'public accomodations.' These laws enumerate 'protected classes' which discrimination can not be based on.

    A judge can not rule that under the 14th Amendment a public accommodation has to do anything.

  • John||

    You know I am an actual lawyer Bo because my points go right over your head. If something is a protected class, then the state can't pass laws that protect some people from discrimination and not them without passing strict scrutiny. Why is it that the state makes it illegal for someone to discriminate on the basis of race but not on the basis of gender identity if gender identity is a protected class under the equal protection clause?

    I find it difficult to carry on a conversation with you because you are incapable of thinking on your own or seeing a point if it is not explained to you in the most basic and obvious of ways.

  • Restoras||

    I find it difficult to carry on a conversation with you because you are incapable of thinking on your own or seeing a point if it is not explained to you in the most basic and obvious of ways.

    Funny, John, that's how many of us feel about you.

  • John||

    I am sure you do Restoras. But that says more about you than me. What you see as "you just don't understand" is usually "my point went over your head"

  • Restoras||

    Yep, you are so much smarter than everyone else here, and we are just too stupid to realize it.

  • R C Dean||

    Of course transgender individuals should be able to use facilities for the gender which they live and identify

    You might consider not assuming a conclusion, next time.

  • John||

    It is a public accommodation RC. The collective owns it and determines who gets access. Didn't you know that?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Maybe those facilities are segregated by sex, not gender? The transsexual advocates make big deal about there being a distinction between the two words but, sure do conflate the two when it is convenient to their desires.

  • John||

    Why is it "bigotry" to want separate sex bathrooms? I guess some people don't like that. That seems like a question of preference and not bigotry. Why does Reason let the ridiculous language of the Left creep into so much of their writing?

    And of all of the idiotic hills to die on. Really?

  • Calidissident||

    I didn't see the word "bigotry" once in the article. I ran a Ctrl F on both pages and the only times it showed up were in your comment.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    For advocates of unisex bathrooms, building codes—not bigotry—may be the biggest obstacle.
  • Calidissident||

    Ok, I see, that was in the synopsis on the main page of HnR, not the actual article. In any case, it's downplaying bigotry as an obstacle, so why get your panties twisted over it?

  • John||

    it's downplaying bigotry as an obstacle,

    Because it is saying that the reason this is happening is because of building codes not because people object to it. It then uses the word "bigotry" to describe the objection.

    I suppose you could say it means "people really are not bigoted towards transvestites". That, however, really doesn't make much sense in the context.

    In context, the sentence is saying "building codes are the biggest obstacle to gender neutral bathrooms, not people objecting to them because they are bigots." I don't see how objecting to it makes anyone a bigot or any reason why the word was used other than to imply as much.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Does it mean that if you object to it you are bigot or just that bigotry is one, perhaps significant source of objection?

  • Calidissident||

    "not because people object to it. It then uses the word "bigotry" to describe the objection."

    You're reading that into it. The word object is not mentioned once in the synopsis. I think you are reading way too much into one word of a freaking synopsis that doesn't even appear in the actual article.

    And you seem to be under the impression that if one thinks that some people object because they're bigots, then one is accusing all people who object of people bigots. As I said elsewhere, if they were saying that objection = bigotry, why emphasize the laws, if the only reason one would support those laws is bigotry?

  • John||

    Ask yourself, how could people object to this out of "bigotry" if objected to unisex bathrooms wasn't a bigoted thing to do?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Have you seen a Venn Diagram? Bigotry could be one, but not the only reason to object.

  • John||

    Again, he could have said "not due to people's preferences for sex segregated bathrooms." He didn't say that. He said "not due to bigotry". You position is that he meant the first but for some reason said the second. That is ridiculous. The sentence only makes sense if you equate objecting to bigotry. Otherwise the sentence is saying "laws are the reason for this not this other thing that has nothing to do with the issue".

    If people are objecting to this for unbigoted reasons, why use the term and not just say that? You only say bigotry because you assume bigotry means objecting.

    You can die on this semantic hill all you want. It is what you do. It won't make your case any more compelling.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are not getting it. You are the one doing the assuming.

    Bigotry could be one (and likely) reason to oppose uni-sex bathrooms.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    My panties are just fine. Spacious, even. Not as lush as the adult diapers I usually wear to work, but...

  • John||

    It is in the introduction on the main H&R page. It says

    For advocates of unisex bathrooms, building codes—not bigotry—may be the biggest obstacle.

    Maybe I misread it. But doesn't that imply that objecting to segregated bathrooms is bigotry? The sentence says the problem is building codes not "bigotry" which I take to mean people objecting to creating them.

  • paranoid android||

    No, it suggests that one big obstacle, among other unspecified obstacles, to advocates of unisex bathrooms may be bigotry. Unless you want to go all the way to denying that bigotry against transgender individuals exists, this should be a perfectly uncontroversial statement.

    I apologize for not considering the lead from the main page in my little quip below, for what it's worth.

  • John||

    Sure bigotry exists. But why is that "bigotry" such as it is relevant here if not because objecting to same sex bathrooms is bigoted? The only way the sentence makes sense is if the writer is equating objection to single sex bathrooms to bigotry.

  • Sudden||

    bigotry against transgender individuals exists,

    what you call "bigotry against transgender individuals", I call taste, common sense, and accepting the realities of the world instead of fetishized fantasies.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    " I call taste, common sense, and accepting the realities of the world"

    Why not just go with 'prejudice?'

  • Restoras||

    Because that's not what 'prejudice' means?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You might want to google 'Burke and prejudice'

  • Restoras||

    prej·u·dice noun \ˈpre-jə-dəs\ : an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc.

    : a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logical

    I don't see anything in Sudden's post that implies anything in the definition of 'prejudice'.

  • Carnival||

    The lovely thing about this is that it doesn't matter what your opinions are on trans* folk: you will loose. We know where the world is going and it is towards acceptance.

    You're like those pathetic SoCons who fought same-sex marriage: your doomed from the start.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

  • Restoras||

    I did. That result didn't come up. The only thing I saw regarding Burke and prejudice was with respect to his views on the French Revolution; where it is acceptable to view events with prejudice, meaning with acknowledgement of the experience and traditions of the past, in that broader context, and not as stand-alone events in a vacuum.

    I'm just not sure what that has to do with where everyone gets to piss and shit.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It was a bit of a high brow joke. Sudden said 'what you call "bigotry against transgender individuals", I call taste, common sense, and accepting the realities of the world,' which ironically is what the word 'prejudice' meant in Burke's day.

    See the joke?

  • Restoras||

    I do now, and well played, but it is a bit anachronisic given the current usage of the word. And thanks for the link - I recently read a biography of Burke that was wanting in discussion of his political thought.

  • SusanM||

    Yeah, right motherfucker. And here's what taste and common sense look like:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAfsR58ocXY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2iPcVVNiOI

    The victim, Chrissy Lee Polis, was 22 at the time of the attack.[2] Polis, then a resident of Baltimore,[3] said that she was going to use a restroom, when a female individual spat in her face. Then she and another female individual started attacking Polis. One of the attackers was 14 years old. One McDonald's employee filmed the beating and the attempts of another employee and a customer trying to intervene in the attack.[2] The other McDonald's employees in the video are heard to be laughing.[5]

    The beating lasted for several minutes. Weijia Jiang of CBS Baltimore said "Then after a powerful blow to the head, the victim appears to have a violent seizure, and as she bleeds from the mouth, spectators warn the attackers to flee before cops arrive."[1] Polis said that she had been intoxicated during the attack, and that she had a seizure. Polis received cuts to the face and mouth. Polis, a White American, stated that she believed that being transgender had a role in her attack. Both of the perpetrators were African American.[3]

  • Calidissident||

    Do you mean objecting to segregated or unisex bathrooms? I'm assuming you meant unisex.

    It seems to me that that line (who writes those main page synopses btw?)is downplaying bigotry as an obstacle. And if they were trying to say objecting to unisex bathrooms = bigotry, then that would be a very odd thing to say. Especially since the laws would then presumably be motivated solely by bigotry, which makes the distinction meaningless.

  • John||

    But bigotry could never be an obsticle of any kind unless objecting to unisex bathrooms was a bigoted thing to do. He is saying that we don't have unisex bathrooms because of laws not because people actually object to them, which would of course be bigoted and thus the reason why he says "bigotry" is not the obstacle.

    There is just no other sensible way to read that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Holy smokes John.

    Person A says: I object to uni-sex bathrooms, because I do not want my kid to see opposite sex genitalia in there.

    Person B says: I object to uni-sex bathrooms because it just makes me uncomfortable.

    Person C says: I object to uni-sex bathrooms because transvestites are sick, awful people who should get with reality, I do not want to see them in bathrooms.

    All object, one's objections are clearly bigotry. So mentioning opposition based on bigotry hardly means all opposition, or all possible opposition, is based on bigotry. Again, this is simple, basic grammar and logic.

  • John||

    That all could be true. If the author thought that he would have said that rather than just saying "bigotry".

    I don't know what to tell you. You clearly have never learned how to read with precision and context or you have and are just trolling here.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    OK, John, the person who assumed that since bigotry was named as a source of opposition the writer clearly meant that all possible opposition must be bigoted is the one talking about reading with precision and context. Wow.

    If you wrote 'efforts to flatten the progressive tax code will more likely face opposition from favored interests rather than class envy', would that mean that all opposition not from favored interests must come from class envy?

  • Calidissident||

    "That all could be true. If the author thought that he would have said that rather than just saying 'bigotry."

    Apparently John is now a mind reader. Seriously, if they were trying to equate opposition with bigotry, why would they be downplaying the importance of bigotry? And if bigotry was the only reason to object, how would bigotry not be the problem, as it would be the only reason the laws exist?

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    "So mentioning opposition based on bigotry hardly means all opposition, or all possible opposition, is based on bigotry. Again, this is simple, basic grammar and logic."

    Thank you. I chose to mention bigotry because it's often offered by trans activists as the only possible reason to oppose unisex bathrooms, or the obvious underlying cause for more such bathrooms not existing.

    Just to spell this out for John, here: By noting that building codes might be an alternate explanation, I did not intend to imply the only possible impediments to unisex bathrooms were bigotry or building codes. And only someone with a very low level of reading comprehension or a very high desire to troll would read it otherwise.

  • John||

    why would they be downplaying the importance of bigotry?

    Because he is downplaying the imporance of people objecting. I never said he said that bigotry was widespread or even important. In fact, he said the opposite. What I said and what he clearly meant is that objecting to unisex bathrooms is an example of bigotry. His point was that it was laws, not people's bigotry and wanting to keep single sex bathrooms, that was causing this.

    I can't make it any plainer than that. You guys either don't know how to read or you just won't admit you are wrong. You don't have to read his mind, you just have to read his words.

  • Calidissident||

    I love how you use the word "he" to refer to Elizabeth and then accuse us of being incapable of reading. Maybe you should read her comment and address her arguments, which everyone here but you understood from the get go.

  • John||

    It was a he that wrote the intro Calidissident. We are talking about the intro.

    Bottomline is that if the author thought that it was possible for people to object to single sex bathrooms, the sentence loses all its meaning. The point of the sentence is that it is laws that are stopping this not people's preferences. If the author thinks that people can object to this without being bigots, then the sentences loses its meaning since it is possible that it is non bigoted objects not just laws stopping this. For the sentence to mean anything the second clause has to encompass all other forms of objection besides laws. Otherwise, how do we know laws are the only thing stopping it? And isn't "laws are what is stopping this" the whole point of the sentence?

  • Calidissident||

    "It was a he that wrote the intro Calidissident. We are talking about the intro."

    Read Elizabeth's comment. If she didn't write the intro, her comment makes no sense, because the word "bigotry" wasn't mentioned in the article.

    Also, she didn't say laws were "the only thing." Just the biggest obstacle. Take it up with Elizabeth, she wrote it, and she's actually replying to your comments if you haven't noticed.

  • paranoid android||

    A quick control + F search of the article shows the word "bigot" appearing 0 times. Why does John let his ridiculous persecution complex creep into so much of his commenting?

  • John||

    Try searching the Reason lead in on the main Hit and Run page.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Go back and check the headline link from H&K, it's there.

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/04.....-restrooms

    Bottom line before the "view the article" link.

  • AlexInCT||

    Wait until they first make it a crime to leave the seat up, then make it the law that dudes have to sit down to pee to so women don't have to deal with that or feel jealous of their plumbing.

    These people are idiots,but the frightning thing is they see everyone else as idiots that need to be forced to do what they think is the right thing, is what I am saying.

  • John||

    I am going to say this. Fuck the transgendered. They can do whatever they want. They can dress however they want. But they have no right to demand everyone else go along with their pretend game. If they want to get a full on sex change operation, then yes, they are then of the opposite sex. If they don't, they have no right to demand that everyone pretend they are anything but what they are. Maybe wearing women's clothes in my mind makes me female. Good for me. That doesn't give me the right to require everyone else have the same definition.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It is getting more and more difficult to manufacture new aggrieved constituencies and "victims". Gays were really the last big one, and are now mostly taken care of; methinks the solution to the 'problem' of our remarkably tolerant society will simply be to claim a lack of special privileges or concern for a given community as a form of discrimination.

  • John||

    And how many transvestites are there? Active gays, as in only have sex with the same sex not "well I did go to an English boarding school but am married now" gays are only one or two percent of the population. Transvestites have to be something less than one percent.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not all transvestites identify themselves as female. I mean, look at Dee Snider. That guy is 100% male.

  • grrizzly||

    Looks like an ugly woman.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, transvestite is a very different thing from transgender. Lots of transvestites aren't even gay.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah, transvestite is a very different thing from transgender.

    I'm sure that distinction-challenged Red Tony would tell you that you are wrong.

  • John||

    I don't really give a shit to be honest. The point still stands. They don't have a right to make everyone else abide by their view of themselves.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think the point is that force is being used to prohibit them from fully self identifying. Or something. And unisex bathrooms would require removing government barriers, as in removing force. So the argument is for less force, not more.

  • Mencken Sense||

    We fatties are next.

    I demand wider seats and Ben & Jerry's subsidies!

  • sarcasmic||

    If they want to get a full on sex change operation, then yes, they are then of the opposite sex.

    You can't turn an X into a Y.

  • John||

    Fair point sarcasmic. Maybe not even then.

  • sarcasmic||

    Would you have sex with a woman you knew was born a man?

  • Restoras||

    Depends how fat.

  • sarcasmic||

    lol

  • Sudden||

    You win. You just fucking win.

  • Sudden||

    So much this^

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, when you meet a person named James and you call him James and he says 'I prefer to be called Jim' do you insist on calling him James because he has no right to demand everyone else go along with his pretend game?

  • sarcasmic||

    Because name and gender are equivalent. Derp.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wow, when did sarcasmic become a gender theorist on us.

  • sarcasmic||

    When did Bo become a derpitologist? Oh yeah. A long time ago.

  • Derpetologist||

    AHEM!

  • John||

    I can if I choose to. I can call him whatever I want and he can choose to think I am a bastard for doing so.

    The bottom line is you can define your gender however you want. You cannot, however expect everyone else to do the same. If you want to come to my business, you can use the men's room. If you don't like it that I don't go along with your definition, don't come.

  • sarcasmic||

    The bottom line is you can define your gender marriage however you want. You cannot, however expect everyone else to do the same.

    Rut ro.

  • John||

    Sure you can. You just can't force me to recognize it. Oh actually you can and reason thinks its great.

    Nevermind.

  • R C Dean||

    Sarc, that sounds to me pretty much like the libertarian line on gay marriage.

    Gay people can get married now, in all 50 states. They just cannot expect everyone else/the state to recognize that marriage. As a libertarian, I acknowledge that a marriage can exist regardless of its recognition by the state and all those haterz.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Is Reason, or even most transgendered people, calling for you to be made to have unisex bathrooms, or just calling people that resist them, and progressive era laws that block them, bastards?

  • John||

    yes. We know from gay marriage where this goes. It goes to declaring "gender identity" to be a protected class and then using the public accommodation laws to mandate this.

    You can claim "no one wants that" all you want. The entire experience of gay marriage shows otherwise. The end state is always the creation of a protected class and the use the the law to enforce it. You and people like you will lie and claim that isn't the goal right up until it is and then you will claim it was always the goal. It will most likely work.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "yes. We know from gay marriage where this goes."

    Oh, so you are complaining about what Reason and transvestites might argue in the future. H.G. Wells type of stuff.

  • John||

    Gay marriage was always about making homosexuality a protected class and then using the public accommodation laws to make it illegal to publicly object to homosexuality. That effort has now largely succeeded. The next object will be transvestites or whatever you wish to call them. Since reason cheered gay marriage being used to make gays a protected class, I see no reason to think they won't do the same when transvestites are made the same.

    Sorry, if you wanted anyone to believe you when you say "we don't want to make this a right", you shouldn't have lied about gay marriage. That kind of tipped things off.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What other rights are you against because they might be turned into compulsions, John?

    I say, push for rights, and if someone tries to later turn that right into a compulsion, push against it then.

  • John||

    What other rights are you against because they might be turned into compulsions, John?

    Yes, I am against making personal preferences "rights" that can be forced on other people. I said upfront people have a right to call themselves anything they like. They just don't have a right to force or expect other people to do the same. And the experience of gay marriage shows that that is exactly where this is going to go. Otherwise it is not an issue. It is already legal to call yourself whatever gender you want. you just can't make other people believe you.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Are you against striking down interracial marriage bans or segregation laws because our experience has shown that what followed was non-discrimination?

  • sarcasmic||

    The next object will be transvestites or whatever you wish to call them.

    Just to help you get the terminology right, a tranvestite is a man who dresses in women's clothing. He may or may not be gay.

    A transgender is someone who, well, in my opinion is mentally ill.

  • Carnival||

    You have a terrible definition of 'mental illness.'

    In almost all clinical settings, someone only qualifies as mentally ill if their disorder (or whatever) causes significant distress to them or makes them a danger to others. If someone feels like they are trans* and presenting that way makes them happy, then they are not mentally ill.

    They are not in distress, and they are not a danger (except maybe to your oh-so-precious sensibilities), so therefor, they are not, by the medical definition, mentally ill.

  • Azathoth!!||

    In almost all clinical settings, someone only qualifies as mentally ill if their disorder (or whatever) causes significant distress to them or makes them a danger to others.

    Ummm.....wanting a different body and being willing to cut parts from ones body so one can have the appearance--and only the appearance--of that body is pretty clearly ' significant distress'.

    They are very definately mentally ill. The fact that there is an ameliorative surgery doesn't change that.

  • Rhywun||

    Gay marriage was always about making homosexuality a protected class and then using the public accommodation laws to make it illegal to publicly object to homosexuality.

    For the vast majority of gays, it isn't about any such thing. Your collectivist smearing of whole groups is getting really fucking tiresome.

  • John||

    For the vast majority of gays, it isn't about any such thing.

    I guess that is why such a large part of the gay community objected to the bakery in New Mexico being forced to serve the gay wedding.

    Did I miss that? It seems to me they all cheered it. I can't think of a single gay person who didn't. Can you? If you can, they sure as hell are the minority.

    It is not a smear, if it is true. You denial that any group you like could be capable of doing anything wrong is pretty fucking tiresome too.

  • Rhywun||

    such a large part of the gay community objected to the bakery in New Mexico

    I am pretty sure the largest part of the gay community either didn't give a shit or wasn't aware of it.

    You denial that any group you like could be capable of doing anything wrong is pretty fucking tiresome too.

    Funny, I didn't say any such thing. But keep putting words in my mouth. I'm gay and therefore completely predictable to you anyway.

  • John||

    I am pretty sure the largest part of the gay community either didn't give a shit or wasn't aware of it.

    Citation on that? Beyond that, even if it is true, don't they bear some responsibility for not standing up to people doing awful things in their name? If someone claiming to be a Libertarian were running on a platform of white supremacy, wouldn't you think Libertarians should stand up and disassociate themselves from him? If they didn't, could they complain when people associated race supremacy with Libertarianism?

    Why wouldn't gays want to be a protected class? It is a great racket. You telling me that you just know gays are really principled libertarians who wouldn't want to benefit from being a protected class.

    That sounds like a fantasy to me.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not much aware of other Native American's standing up and denouncing the movement to ban the name Redskins, though I have heard a majority is fine with it, does that mean we can draw the same conclusions you do about gays?

  • sarcasmic||

    You can claim "no one wants that" all you want. The entire experience of gay marriage shows otherwise.

    In Maine when they were pushing to add homosexuals to the list of protected classes, the opposition was loudly mocked for saying the next step was using accommodation laws to change the definition of marriage. As soon as homosexuals were added to the list of protected classes, the very same people who mocked the opposition immediately did exactly what they said would never happen.

  • Zeb||

    How about this. If you are a tranvestite/transgender/whatever and you can use the public toilets for the sex you are trying to be without anyone noticing, then do that. If you can't, then you probably have a bit more work to do on your transition.

  • John||

    Every law is only effective if you can't get away with breaking it.

  • Zeb||

    So, in other words, no law is effective? I don't think there is any law that someone hasn't got away with breaking.

  • Arn0||

    Using the wrong toilets is forbidden by the law in the USA ?

  • Carnival||

    No, but basic human decency suggests that going along with it is a better thing to do, even if you don't buy it.

    And for the record, you should buy it. You're using antiquated definitions of both sex and gender.

  • ||

    Science is antiquated?

  • Carnival||

    That comment just highlights how little you know about the issue.

    Gender =/= biological sex and not all tran* people want to be a different biological sex. Some just feel like they should be a different gender, or don't identify with any gender at all.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    transgender individuals should be able to use facilities for the gender which they live and identify as


    Um... why?

    the creation of more unisex bathrooms seems, in general, like a good move


    Um... why?

    Private, sex-segregated lavoratories were a modern and Western European invention, bound up with urbanization, the rise of sanitary reform, the privatization of the bodily functions


    So is washing your hands before eating and most of modern medicine.

    doing away with existing laws that force bathroom segregation could go a long way


    ...towards unisex bathrooms. Which have become a burning issue... why, exactly?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "transgender individuals should be able to use facilities for the gender which they live and identify as

    Um... why?"

    Because of basic respect for people's autonomy and right to define themselves as long as they are not violating your rights?

    I could also ask, why not?

  • sloopyinca||

    So if I want to self-identify as a member of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, does that mean I'm entitled to a full share of the casino money or that I should have the right to build a reservation and casino of my own with the force of the federal government behind me? After all, why should it matter that I am not a real member of the tribe if I really believe in my heart that I am?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Perhaps sarcasmic could point out that asking for a full share of casino money and access to a restroom might not be equivalent.

  • R C Dean||

    The principle's the same, though. Isn't it?

    And "self-identifying" as Indian regardless of the facts is A-OK with the affirmative action crowd, as proven by Elizabeth Warren's career.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I tend to respect people's self-identification up to a point, and I think most decent people do. If someone tells me to call her Jill when her name is Jillian I am not going to insist on calling her Jill.

    Of course there are limits. If a stranger insists they are a creditor of mine I am not going to indulge them.

    I think bathrooms are closer to the first. If someone thinks they are closer to the second, let us hear their argument for that.

  • sloopyinca||

    Like I said below, please indulge us with drawing those lines and explaining why each item falls on either side of it.

    You stupid discriminating bastard. Who the fuck are you to tell me that I'm not a Morongo Indian. It's not impacting you if I get my full tribal rights any more than it would impact you if I got my womanly rights by tucking and self-identifying as Barbie.

    Let's see you spin your way out of this one.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I will re ask my question: why do you think the bathroom thing is closer to the 'I am a person who should get a share of something' than 'please do not call me Jillian, call me Jill?'

  • sloopyinca||

    Maybe because the people lobbying for this are lobbying the government to codify it...like they've fucking done in California already.

    Jesus Christ, are you so hell=bent on being a contrarian dickface that you can't even take the time to read the articles or background of a conversation before chiming in?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "are you so hell=bent on being a contrarian dickface that you can't even take the time to read the articles or background of a conversation before chiming in?"

    That seems really ironic, since the article is arguing against state codification in the direction opposite of what you are talking about.

  • sloopyinca||

    The article is arguing against it, but the activists are arguing for it. You know, just like they did in California.

    But if this is your way out of answering a direct and simple question, I guess I'll accept it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "The article is arguing against it, but the activists are arguing for it."

    So you, and others, really are changing the subject, right?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Uh, because the people demanding unisex bathrooms are asking that public spaces be redesigned around their needs?

    It is exactly a transgender saying "I am a person who should get a share of something", and does have that impact.

    [All that said, who gives a shit whether or not trans use a given bathroom or another. Trans individuals are a small minority and overwhelmingly law-abiding, and it really doesn't matter. The bigger problem is spending tons of money on "unisex" accommodation at existing government facilities, pushing them for private businesses and people who already have segregated bathrooms, and going on witch-hunts against the non-compliant, including (but not limited to) the use of force.]

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "because the people demanding unisex bathrooms are asking that public spaces be redesigned around their needs?"

    But that is not what this article is about, nor has anyone here supported that view.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    Yeah, um, this particular thread started from someone asking why transgender people should get to use the bathroom they choose. BCE responded to that. Then people started arguing back against a different argument entirely....

  • sloopyinca||

    And? I asked him a question that put his "self-identity" claim to the test and he refused to answer a couple of basic questions hat specifically addressed the state-sanctioned component of the issues. Then he got all thin-skinned when I didn't answer a question he really didn't even direct at me.

    And he's a contrarian hack who argues from feeling as opposed to libertarian principles of limiting the government's intervention into free association.

  • paranoid android||

    Yeah, um, this particular thread started from someone asking why transgender people should get to use the bathroom they choose. BCE responded to that. Then people started arguing back against a different argument entirely....

    That would be due to the odd subset (well represented here, unfortunately) of people calling themselves libertarians who while they advocate for individual choice and freedom on a wide range of subjects immediately buy into group identity politics and demand ruthless conformity whenever the subject turns to sexuality and gender, an outlook I will never understand if I live to be 100.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Jill, that's not what's going on.

    What's going on is that a guy is saying 'I don't have a penis and need to use the ladies room when he clearly has a penis.

  • R C Dean||

    I tend to respect people's self-identification up to a point,

    That's nice.

    What we're talking about, though, is whether the State should force everyone to recognize "self-identification".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "What we're talking about, though, is whether the State should force everyone to recognize "self-identification"."

    Are we? The Reason article does not seem to advocate that, but rather the elimination of codes that mandate the opposite.

  • Zeb||

    I actually think that people should be able to just self identify as whatever race or tribe they feel like. Then no one would know who to be racist against.

  • Sudden||

    As a Zimbabwean Zoroastrian Klinefelter, I find this suggestion to be a great idea.

  • RannedPall||

    Geez, Zeb, you trying to make me spit my beer all over the bar top?

  • sloopyinca||

    It may not be exactly equivalent but it's certainly an apt comparison.

    Please list the areas where it's acceptable to allow people to self identify and be protected by the government. Then please list the areas where it's not acceptable for people to self identify and be protected by the government. Oh, and be sure to list the reasons why or why not for each statement.

    kthxbai

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Please list the areas where it's acceptable to allow people to self identify and be protected by the government."

    Who is arguing for government protection here? Not me or Reason. I am talking about basic polite decency. If John wants to be a bastard and deny transgendered people access to certain bathrooms, more power to him, but the law should not make me do the same, and if people want to try to persuade people less set in their opinion than John, that is fine with me.

  • sloopyinca||

    You're changing the subject, as expected. The griefers here want the state to step in and codify that people be able to use the bathrooms of whatever sex they self-identify as. And in California, that's already happened.

    So I'll ask again, please list the areas where it's ok and the areas where it isn't. Because codifying this is exactly the argument that's being made here.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No, you are changing the subject. The article at the head of the thread is not about the state stepping in to force uni-sex, in fact it is about the state stepping in on the other side.

  • sloopyinca||

    So you're saying you aren't going to respond to my simple request? OK, thanks for playing. Now go fuck yourself.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You did not respond to mine long ago, so I guess you have head start on me there.

  • Snap and Crackle, no Pop||

    Ah, Bo demonstrating that he believes in the "I think you acted like a dick so I'll refuse to support my argument" premise.

    Why not take the high road?

    I was interested in hearing you answer his question, until you started acting like a child.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Sloopy, of course, was above board the entire time and therefore you have no denunciation of him! You're as transparent as glass my friend.

  • sloopyinca||

    What question did you ask of me? All I got was "perhaps sarcasmic could point out..." Going back, I believe I answered your first question of me in good faith. You, on the other hand, are still refusing to answer mine.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ironically, your question and mine are really the same.

    I put it this way: 'I will re ask my question: why do you think the bathroom thing is closer to the 'I am a person who should get a share of something' than 'please do not call me Jillian, call me Jill?'

    You put it this way: 'please indulge us with drawing those lines and explaining why each item falls on either side of it.'

    My answer is, I think bathroom access is closer to the name thing because, as Zeb mentions, it is just a matter of taste and comfort, and manners should trump taste and comfort. But manners would not push me to allow someone get away with fraud.

  • Calidissident||

    Sloopy, did you actually read the article? It's not arguing what you say "is exactly the argument that's being made here." It's arguing against existing laws codifying separate bathrooms, even in private establishments.

    Also, do the recently passed California laws apply only to restrooms in publicly-owned places (like public schools) or to ones in private establishments?

  • John||

    Calidissident,

    I am pretty sure sloopy knows what the article is saying. The point is that no one trusts the progs to just leave it at that. Name me any other issue they haven't eventually turned into an excuse for government mandated conformity?

    I would object to the California law. Why should local schools and the parents and boards who run them not make that decision? If West Hollywood wants gender neutral bathrooms, good for them. Why can't the people in Orange country have something else? The only reason you could think they shouldn't and that the state needs to step in is because you think gender neutral bathrooms are a right and not having them violates the rights of some students. If that is true, it is only a matter of time before it is mandated on all public bathrooms.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Name me any other issue they haven't eventually turned into an excuse for government mandated conformity?"

    You are more right than you probably want to be John. Progressives took the original goals of the civil rights movement, striking down mandatory segregation laws for example, and then pushed for mandatory non-discrimination laws. So should we have opposed the striking down of the mandatory segregation laws?

  • John||

    No. But that begs the question of are these laws the same as the mandatory segregation laws. And the answer is that they are not. The reason for that is that while black people do have a right to use the same bathroom as whites or go to the same school, people don't have a right to demand to use the bathroom of the opposite sex.

    These laws might not be what you like. And you are free to want them changed. They are however nothing like and should never be spoken of in the same way as race segregation laws.

  • paranoid android||

    The reason for that is that while black people do have a right to use the same bathroom as whites or go to the same school, people don't have a right to demand to use the bathroom of the opposite sex.

    Yeah, I'm trying to find the clause of the NAP that deals with bathroom usage, and it just doesn't seem to be there. Codes of conduct for bathrooms are entirely social customs. It's ludicrous to claim there's some kind of special right that precludes segregating bathrooms by race but sanctifies segregating them by gender.

  • John||

    It's ludicrous to claim there's some kind of special right that precludes segregating bathrooms by race but sanctifies segregating them by gender.

    So recognizing that there are actual meaningful differences between genders and not between races is "ludicrous"?

    If that is true, then being embarassed when naked in front of the opposite sex is just as irrational as being so in front of the opposite race.

    I don't think so.

  • paranoid android||

    What is with your bizarre insistence on taking what people tell you and twisting it into the complete fucking opposite of what they were trying to say, and then attacking them for it?

    I never said it was irrational, I said that it was based on social custom. Ever flipped through an issue of National Geographic? Did those tribesmen look all that embarrassed about being naked around the opposite sex, to you?

  • sloopyinca||

    If that is true, then being embarassed when naked in front of the opposite sex is just as irrational as being so in front of the opposite race.

    I'm embarrassed when naked in front of black men. Especially if I just got out of the pool. I'm fine in front of Asians under any circumstances.

  • Calidissident||

    John,

    I didn't say anything about the wisdom of the CA law, nor did I assert any of the arguments you accuse me of asserting. I was just trying to say that if it applies only to publicly-owned buildings, it's not nearly as onerous as already existing requirements in the opposite direction that affect private establishments.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Well, no. The article is about how some in the trans community want to have the state force unisex and how they like to blame bigotry when it was actually the state that started all the segregation.

    And the article shows a preference for unisex.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, I think you should be entitled to a share. Fuck those people and their bullshit little racket. And anyone who thinks that who their ancestors were has anything to do with getting special privileges today.

  • Calidissident||

    You can self-identify as whatever you want, they're not under any sort of obligation to recognize it. Likewise, I don't think people should be compelled to allow anyone to use any particular bathroom, but I also don't agree with current laws requiring them to have separate bathrooms.

  • Zeb||

    I think that says most of what really needed to be said here.

  • Plisade||

    We should be able to self-identify, but that shouldn't trump freedom of association.

  • Calidissident||

    Did you actually read my comment? That's is exactly what I just said, just stated more succinctly.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Look Calidissident, why read people's comments, or the lead article for that matter, when talking points have to be expressed?

  • Plisade||

    I know I'm agreeing with you, just naming the principle, Freedom of Association.

  • Calidissident||

    Ok, gotcha, I wasn't sure if you were doing that or for some reason thought I was arguing against that. Hard to tell sometimes over the Internet, but my apologies nonetheless.

  • Plisade||

    It's all good. I should've made clear my agreement with you.

  • Tak Kak||

    "I could also ask, why not?"

    There's an argument to be made that transgendered are mentally ill, and thus playing along (calling them by their preferred pronoun, name, letting them use their choice bathroom, etc...) is ultimately just harming them.

    However, ideas like one's "right to define" is nonsense, at least with regards to libertarianism.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "ideas like one's "right to define" is nonsense, at least with regards to libertarianism."

    So you would oppose allowing people to change their names legally? On libertarian grounds?

  • Tak Kak||

    "So you would oppose allowing people to change their names legally? On libertarian grounds?"

    One's name is simply what one is called. People are free (or ought to be) to use their vocal chords however they see fit.

    You can fill out a form declaring anything and everything, doesn't mean anything on libertarian grounds.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If a person can legally ask people to call him John instead of Tak, or even socially do that, why is it so odd for a person who genuinely identifies with another gender to ask people to treat him as that gender?

  • Carnival||

    Because it squicks people like Tak Kak out, and they're just coming up with 'logical' constructs to enforce their comfort levels.

  • Tak Kak||

    Carnival,

    do you have any idea what you're talking about?

  • Tak Kak||

    Saying they "genuinely identify" with another gender completely ignores the objection(s) already raised.

    Quite frankly, someone requesting a new name is pretty odd itself, and also pretty rare. However, saying "I really feel like a 'Steve'" is quite different than saying "I really feel like a woman" (To be fair, both are vacuous statements)

    The latter, however, isn't one swapping one name for another, it's one declaring themselves to be a part of entire group and would obviously has far more reaching consequences. So it's easy to see why the former is more accepted.

    Short version: One is far simpler than the other.

    We've, of course, strayed off of libertarian grounds with this, it has nothing to do with rights anymore.

  • Carnival||

    Not really. It is of absolutely no consequence to you what gender someone presents as, as long as you are willing to mind your own business and not care what other people are doing.

    Take it from someone who lives in a place with entirely gender-neutral bathrooms: it doesn't matter at all if the person next to you is male, female, trans, genderqueer or anything else. That's true for every other circumstance.

  • R C Dean||

    What's delicious is that the Female Grievance Committees are going to be up in arms if they have to share a unisex bathroom with non-females.

    Giving one set of Recognized Oppressed People what they demand, just oppresses another set of Recognized Oppressed People. Its the inevitable end game of identity politics. See, also, discriminating against Asians in college admissions.

  • Zeb||

    Let me answer your questions with some more questions.

    Why do we have sex segregated bathrooms now?
    If you apply those reasons to cases of transgender people, what makes the most sense for people who are doing well at dressing and acting like their chosen gender identity?

    The only reason I can think of for separate bathrooms is comfort and tastes. There is no natural law that says that trouble happens if people with different peepees do their business next to each other.

    To me anyway it seems that a man convincingly acting and dressing like a woman using the ladies' room is going to be a lot less disruptive and uncomfortable for the other bathroom users than if that person used the men's room.

  • John||

    Why do we have sex segregated bathrooms now?

    Because people prefer it that way.

  • Zeb||

    Sure. That's pretty much what I said. It's a matter of what people are comfortable with.
    Transgender people are going to have to use some bathroom. So which is more uncomfortable and disruptive, dude with a dress, heels and lipstick in the men's room or in the women's room. It's not completely obvious. I'd lean toward saying that person using the men's room is more disruptive and uncomfortable, but other's may differ.

    That's why I fall back to do whatever you can get away with. If you want to live as the other gender, you are going to need to do it somewhat convincingly, no?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Cultural comforts and tastes with the stamp of history and a majority should be defended by even campaigns that do not call for the violation of the NAP, and if they are upheld by the force of law then we should not argue against that because once that liberty is right it might evolve into a mandate. Or so goes the reasoning of some of the 'libertarians' here.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If you apply those reasons to cases of transgender people, what makes the most sense for people who are doing well at dressing and acting like their chosen gender identity?

    This isn't for the ones who are doing well at it--those folks just go into whatever bathroom they look like.

    It's for the other ones.

    The ones who aren't doing good at it, the ones who are doing things that no one quite understands, and the ones who are being weird just to make their point.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Why do we have sex segregated bathrooms now?
    If you apply those reasons to cases of transgender people, what makes the most sense for people who are doing well at dressing and acting like their chosen gender identity?"

    We are segregating these facilities by gender, we are segregating them by sex.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "We are not segregating those facilities by gender..."

  • ||

    Look, until we have co-ed showers like in Starship Troopers, and Dina Meyer and Denise Richards are in there showering with me, this is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against me.

    I would also take the co-ed showers in Battlestar Galactica as long as Grace Park and Tricia Helfer are there.

  • John||

    That is great and everything is all fun and games until Warty shows up in your little coed shower. This is why we can't have nice things and why the price of civilization is segregated bathrooms.

  • ||

    Except, John, that my co-ed shower is shielded against timesuits. No Warty allowed.

  • sloopyinca||

    First off, Denise Richards went to Fleet, and there's no reason to think they had co-ed showers like MI did. Second, that scene looked like Verhoeven was running a product placement cross-promotion with Bisquick what with all the pancake titties.

  • ||

    DON'T TALK SHIT ABOUT DINA MEYER

  • sloopyinca||

    Flapjacks, dude.

    NSFW, obviously.

  • Zeb||

    Hey, you're the one all into making babies, dude. That sort of shit is all your fault.

  • Game of Thrones fan||

    So say we all.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Don't lie.

    There are those of us who don't want mixed use facilities. It violates my expectation of privacy.

  • sloopyinca||

    By the 1920s, most states had passed similar laws. That all seems relatively fine, but the problem happened when the government went beyond merely mandating that employers give all employees a place to do their business to specifying exactly how and in what ratios this must occur, in and out of the workplace.

    So the fucking state is why women always go to the bathroom in pairs? Why am I not surprised?

  • John||

    Actually, women are the main drivers behind keeping those ratios and actually changing them to their favor. Most of the building codes have been updated to mandate more women's restrooms than men.

  • LynchPin1477||

    America’s public restrooms are regulated by two separate federal agencies

    You can't make this stuff up.

  • R C Dean||

    Because crapping is something something interstate commerce, I guess.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I thought the problems with unisex bathrooms were pretty clear back when Ally McBeal was on the air.

  • mr simple||

    I have to work on my dismount.

  • Tak Kak||

    Do the transgendered women take as long as (cis?)women?

    From my experience, places with two unisex restrooms just means two lines I get to choose from. Segregated restrooms are very efficient, for men, at least.

  • Zeb||

    Getting rid of the laws and codes would be good. But people are used to and seem to want sex segregated toilets, so that's probably how things will continue to go. Personally, I don't care who is pooping next to me, but I suppose that is a matter of personal preference.

  • gimmeasammich||

    I think Restoras summed it up pretty well upthread. "Depends how fat." Unless you are German or something, why would you want to hear a hot girl dopping some kids off at the pool next to you?

  • Zeb||

    I got used to that in college with our coed bathrooms.

  • LemonMender||

    Because I work at a geeky research institute the floor I work on in my building has about six women and roughly 25 men or so. We have an equal number (2) of bathrooms for each, but because of the disparity, often both men's bathrooms are full when I've got to go and one of the women’s ones is tucked out of the way and I've never seen anyone ever use it. So I regularly end up using the women's one. In our environment where the bathrooms are one-person small closets, it doesn't make any sense to gender segregate them.

  • Sudden||

    Comrade, the appropriate solution is not unisex bathrooms or flouting establish regulations and procedures regarding whose bathroom is whose. The appropriate solution is firing ten men and hiring ten women in their place. At equal pay. Regardless of ability or experience.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't want unisex bathrooms because WOMEN ARE FUCKING SLOBS!

  • Sudden||

    But if we do get unisex bathrooms, I may find myself tapping my foot a considerable amount.

  • Swiss Servator, Versicherung!||

    +1 hand swipe and wide stance?

  • Zeb||

    And the best part is you can imagine anything you want on the other side of the glory hole.

  • Restoras||

    Not to mention they will probably barge into your stall to ask you a quick question, or borrow something, or whatever, and totally violate what little me time we have already.

  • Sudden||

    I don't need strange women to know of the sounds and smells that accompany my defication, nor do I want constant reminders of theirs.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's a bit of a weenie shrinker, isn't it?

  • Homple||

    Flush with success on the same sex marriage front, libertarians are opening an assault on separate sex restrooms.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "the privatization of the bodily functions"

    RETHUGLICANS PRIVATIZED MY BODILY FUNCTIONS?????????????!?!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • T||

    Now progressives want to publicize them!

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I'd be okay with unisex restrooms as long as they still have urinals. Because I'm not cool with having to wait to use a stall

    If you need any proof that men are the superior sex rightfully given dominion over the earth, look no further then our ability to take a piss standing up.

  • Sudden||

    Urinals? I think they should all have the troughs like Doyer Stadium.

  • sloopyinca||

    Troughs? Look at you on your high horse.

    No, they should just have a line painted on the sloped floor about 5 feet from the wall you piss on and a piece of pvc pipe with holes drilled into it to wash it down like they have at Martinsville Speedway.*

    *At least it was that way the last time I went to a race there.

  • Sudden||

    I'll take that as an acceptable substitute. Provided it will be present in all unisex bathrooms. Because women should constantly see dicks in real life and not just from Anthony Weiner snapchats.

  • Spartacus||

    I've been in stadiums that have this sort of setup. A marvel of simplicity and elegance, if you ask me. Well, maybe not elegance. But simplicity, definitely.

  • Tak Kak||

    "If you need any proof that men are the superior sex rightfully given dominion over the earth, look no further then our ability to take a piss standing up."

    I believe there have been legal campaigns trying to criminalize that very (barbaric!) act.

  • WTF||

  • sloopyinca||

    If you need any proof that men are the superior sex rightfully given dominion over the earth, look no further then our ability to take a piss standing up.

    Proof that this is true.

  • Banjos||

    I have always been greatly jealous of men's ability to piss in public (or while camping) with such incredible ease.

  • Edwin||

    //If you need any proof that men are the superior sex rightfully given dominion over the earth, look no further then our ability to take a piss standing up.

    Ha! that really made me laugh out loud. It's true isn't it? that's what makes it funny
    I've always thought of it more along the lines of "clearly men should be the ones working, because on the farm/jobsite you need to be able to go somewhere real quick and pee"

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm thinking that the whole "self-identifying" thing is bullshit. Do you have a dick? If yes, then you're a male...period.

    I self-identify as sexy, but you don't see me demanding that the Ford Agency start giving me work. Well, just because a man self-identifies as a woman doesn't mean he should be using the women's shitter at Denny's.

  • Sudden||

    I'm gonna start doing this. I'm gonna dress as manly as possible and then I'm going to use women's restrooms everywhere I go. When someone stops to interrogate me, I'll say that I self-identify as a woman and could kindly do without their bigotry and male gaze.

    Sometimes the only way to demonstrate that the Emperor has no clothes is to mock him mercilessly through mimicry.

  • Zeb||

    If yes, then you're a male...period.

    Sure, if that is what defines maleness. But you can still be a male who is most comfortable acting, dressing and living like a woman. I think that still leaves open the question of what bathroom is most appropriate for you to use.

  • Zinfidel||

    This is easy: just make a federal registry of groups requiring an individual restroom. For each one democratically added to the list, all places offering public restrooms must build one exclusively for use by that group.

    By the multiplitastic powers of the stimulus gods, all this new construction will make each citizen wealthy enough to afford a whole house full of restrooms anywhere they may travel. Ever. Then public restrooms will be a thing of the past, and we won't need this silly debate.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Are there any women on this thread? What are their thoughts?

  • Sudden||

    I self-identify as a woman.

  • Sudden||

    At least as of 2:07 EDT. Now about that $1.23 you make for every dollar I do....

  • Swiss Servator, Versicherung!||

    Women?! Here? You know TANLW!

  • Banjos||

    As long as there are no urinals in the lady's bathroom, I don't give a flying fuck.

  • ||

    Nah, I won't even go that far. As long as there are toilets, and I don't have to just squat to pee, I'm good.

  • carol||

    As a matter of privacy I don't want men in the bathroom with me. There's just certain bodily functions that I prefer to deal with without men around. I have no problem having a sitdown next to a transgendered woman.

  • sloopyinca||

    I have no problem having a sitdown next to a transgendered woman.

    Is there something wrong with me if I can't figure out what this means? Is it:
    A: A biological woman who identifies as a man (pre-op)?
    B: A biological woman who identifies as a man (post-op)?
    C: A biological man who identifies as a woman (pre-op)?
    D: A biological man who identifies as a woman (post-op)?

    Because with the muddying of the waters IRT word meanings, I sincerely have no idea what you meant.

  • Calidissident||

    C and D

  • ||

    That just proves how much of a bigoratti you are sloop. You should kneel and bask in Bo's presence and enlightenment.

  • R C Dean||

    I have no problem having a sitdown next to a transgendered woman.

    Or:

    As a matter of privacy I don't want men ,unless they self-identify as women, in the bathroom with me.

    I'm having a hard time reconciling these two. By implication, you are saying that what bothers you isn't men in the bathroom, its men who self-identify as men. Your preferences are your own, and can be as irrational as you like, but I'm puzzled that a male's self-identification is all it takes to make him unobjectionable.

  • BuSab Agent||

    The actual point is one doesn't want to take a crap around someone who might have a sexual interest in them. SO I would rather share a restroom with a gay man than a lesbian. A transgendered woman would also fall into the gay man category unless she was a transgendered lesbian.

  • R C Dean||

    The actual point is one doesn't want to take a crap around someone who might have a sexual interest in them.

    So gay men can/should be banned from men's rooms?

  • BuSab Agent||

    Probably RC, but the thing is preferences that don't pick my pockets or break my legs should not be a matter of law. And the gay man in a man's restroom is a perfect example that there's no way to indulge in everyone's preferences because they conflict.

  • sloopyinca||

    The actual point is one doesn't want to take a crap around someone who might have a sexual interest in them.

    Your bigotry against Germans has been noted.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I can't be too bigoted. I married a German man.

  • Zeb||

    The actual point is one doesn't want to take a crap around someone who might have a sexual interest in them.

    That must get really complicated for gay people.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "The actual point is one doesn't want to take a crap around someone who might have a sexual interest in them."

    From what recall from Psych 101, most transgendered are heterosexual in their biological sex, so for most part that should be a problem for you.

  • Edwin||

    what?
    God damned this shit is confusing

    oh, hey, haha, it could be a pun!

  • BuSab Agent||

    Actually my point was for arguments sake. I personally can take a shit or piss in front of/or next to anyone. I am a hardcore naturist and for added non-modesty inducements spent 10 years in the military doing piss quizzes in front of some very butch lesbians which at the time we weren't asking about or telling. ;)

  • BuSab Agent||

    From what recall from Psych 101, most transgendered are heterosexual in their biological sex, so for most part that should be a problem for you.

    Could you clarify. I can't make out what you are actually saying. Is it a woman with penis who likes women? Or woman with penis who likes men? NTTAWWT either way.

  • Zeb||

    Being bothered by strangers of the other sex being in the stall next to you isn't terribly rational in the first place. What real difference does it make?

    If most people want separate toilets for whatever reason, I don't feel a need to push to change that. But it's really just culture and taste. There is no harm done in sharing.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Exactly.

  • Brett L||

    I just don't understand why anybody wants to be the arbiters of who defecates in which stall. I mean, it gives everybody a chance to declare their feelings about whichever issues they feel strongly about, but at the end of the day, we're talking about wanting to do a check on their primary sexual trait before letting them use a stall. I have so many other things to do with my time. I hope everyone gets their important points across, though.

  • NL_||

    Seems like it would make sense for more buildings to be built without segregated bathrooms at all and just use the same floorspace and plumbing for a series of individual small neutral rooms. It would cost marginally more to have that setup, but the expense isn't all that substantial and it increases flexibility by making all the rooms neutral. The total bathroom capacity can be a little less because excess capacity is usable by all potential users, rather than needing to have two separate capacities for two separate user groups.

  • Mercutio||

    use the same floorspace and plumbing for a series of individual small neutral rooms

    ^This. A thousand times this.^

  • ||

    If only it was that easy.

  • sloopyinca||

    I wish Jesse or Tonio were here to chime in. After all, the LGBT community are one homogeneous group who walk in lockstep together, right? I'm sure they're outraged that they, being men, should use a Men's bathroom.

  • Swiss Servator, Versicherung!||

    Isn't jesse sacking Ireland like a Viking?

  • Restoras||

    That sounds like fun!

  • Sudden||

    I believe he flew back yesterday, but had a few layovers and is probably sleeping off the Guinness withdrawls as we speak.

  • Zeb||

    SusanM, if I am not confused about something and mixing her up with someone else, is probably the most qualified to speak on this subject.

  • SusanM||

    It's me but I take the tack that it's way too soon. People just don't understand the ideas well enough and forcing the issue is counterproductive at best. It's something that is pretty complicated, even for those living it so I can't in good conscience judge people badly for not understanding. I only take issue with people who use arguments designed to stoke fear and paranoia about transfolk or trivialize or dismiss the nature of bigotry (see my post above).

  • NL_||

    Can someone elucidate a simple reason why "separate but equal" does not describe the gender bathroom situation?

    I agree that the harms involved are not remotely similar to Jim Crow, that's not my point. But in principle would it be okay to have separate bathrooms for different religious affiliations, or dark-haired and light-haired people, or whatever, just because the quality of the bathrooms was roughly equivalent? Seems like most people would consider discrimination prima facie unfair.

  • sarcasmic||

    Perhaps women who have no use for urinals would prefer bathrooms that don't have urinals?

  • Restoras||

    Indeed. In fact, bathrooms with urinals would be sexist, since women can't use them, whereas men can use either.

  • sloopyinca||

    Wait, you shit in a urinal?

  • sarcasmic||

    Depends on how much I've had to drink.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    Out of desperation, once at VA Tech. The toilets were both out on that end of the floor, and I knew I wasn't going to make it to the other end of Randolph Hall or down to the next floor.

  • sloopyinca||

    I've "upper-decked" before, but that was more out of malice than desperation.

    Potter's Pub in Richmond, VA.

  • Snap and Crackle, no Pop||

    Not regularly, no...

  • BuSab Agent||

    Women CAN pee standing up. I do whenever it is convenient (camping etc.) All that needs to be done is hold the lips out of the way and pee with some force.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well thank you for that graphic representation as I'm preparing lunch.

  • BuSab Agent||

    You're welcome.

  • sloopyinca||

    Jesus, I read the comment to Banjos and now I get to doubly thank you because she just went on a 5 minute explanation of how women are prone to getting piss on their feet or pants without the proper squat and/or piss angle.

    I am no longer hungry.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Well there's also a practice issue. Men start learning how to aim from the time they first get potty trained, whereas girls never worry about aim. And little boys are just as accurate (which is to say not at all) when learning to pee standing up as women who first attempt peeing standing up. The key to not getting your pants wet is the initial force with which you start and of course the accuracy of your aim.

  • R C Dean||

    Can someone elucidate a simple reason why "separate but equal" does not describe the gender bathroom situation?

    Because they're not equal under the law? Women benefit from a mandate that their bathrooms be bigger.

  • Restoras||

    Men and women, when it comes to internal plumbing, are not equal and accomadations that recognize that fact are perfectly legitimate.

  • R C Dean||

    So, its not separate but equal, and that's OK?

  • Restoras||

    Is the answer just to have two restrooms with identical facilities and stalls with doors? No urinals taking up space and inhibiting privacy?

  • Edwin||

    well the court case that said that "separate but equal is not equal" said it with the qualifier that they were speaking in the context of the time, i.e. "THE WAY IT IS NOW, separate but equal is not equal"

    The court was not speaking universally.
    At least, that's what I remember, I may be wrong.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Can someone elucidate a simple reason why "separate but equal" does not describe the gender bathroom situation?

    Because neither men nor women are a thing unto themselves. Each is half of a thing, that thing being 'human'

    When people behave as if male and female of a single species can have some long term existence without their complement they are showing an extreme level of ignorance.

  • sarcasmic||

    Everyone at work is watching golf and talking loudly about it because one of them is the manager.

    Fucking golf. I don't get it.

  • Sudden||

    Golf is an excuse to drink and drive. And we drive on ROADZ that were, get this, built by someone other than the govt.

    Mind=blown

  • ||

    It is fun to play, but watching? I would rather watch paint dry.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    Fucking golf. I don't get it.

    I'm the same way about watching most sports on TV. A couple hockey games a year, and maybe a football game with my brother in law, tops.

  • sarcasmic||

    Watching grown men play children's games has never interested me.

  • Mickey Rat||

    You walk around trying to something of yours into a small hole, what is there not to get?

  • GaryM||

    Where I used to work at Harvard, there were segregated single-user restrooms. Everyone just ignored the signs and used whichever one was most convenient. Visitors sometimes had trouble understanding the concept.

  • R C Dean||

    That's the way it is in my office. Two identical single-seaters. The wimmenz outnumber the men by probably 2:1.

  • Moe19||

    Many people are going to have to add or remove some pipe.

  • ||

    I have perfected the art of using public bathrooms without touching anything except the door and the paper towels. I use my foot to open the door and then everything else is touched with a paper towel.

    I really could not care less who stinks the place up before I get in there or after I leave.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    Open the door in with your foot, everything else gets touched with a paper towel. Sounds familiar.

  • Banjos||

    I can handle public bathroom stink as long as I am not pregnant. When I am preggos, I am 100% likely to puke my brains out even if no one has shitted in there in weeks.

  • R C Dean||

    Everything else?

  • R C Dean||

    Judging by the first sign, either being handicapped is a different sex, or being transgendered is a handicap.

  • Zeb||

    It's hard to argue that it's not some sort of handicap or deficiency. You are unhappy with your natural state and at best you are going to end up with fake genitals that don't really work.

  • R C Dean||

    I wonder how many GLBT activists would be happy calling transgender people handicapped or, especially, deficient.

  • Zeb||

    A lot seem to want it both ways. Both "it's natural and just who I am" and "it's a serious condition that I need extensive therapy and surgery to correct".

    I'm sure lots of activists would freak out at me for saying that in those words, but there isn't a whole lot of consistency.

    I'm pretty well convinced that gender dysphoria is a real thing. And it doesn't seem like a particularly desirable condition. "Handicap" doesn't seem too far from the mark. It doesn't seem to make life any easier for people.

  • Acosmist||

    Ignorance of human nature is one of those things libertarians are bad at. Forgot for a minute there.

  • R C Dean||

    As a libertarian, I am proud of being bad at ignorance.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    "In 1887, Massachusetts was the first state to pass a law mandating women's restrooms in workplaces with female employees. As far as I can tell, this was a pretty good idea; factories and other places that had begun to employ women were refusing to install restrooms for them. Perhaps the job market would have corrected itself eventually, but in the mean time working ladies had to pee."

    Wait, are you saying that, back in 1887, new england factories and other places WOULD NOT LET LADIES PEE? That is freaking awful! Sure, it'd be a different case if these firms opposed spending money to build bathrooms just for women, but they should have at least allowed women to micturate somewhere. You'd think these gilded age businesses would have suffered ladies to use the men's john or, if none existed, go out back into the filthy alley, hike up their huge skirts, and squat when nature called. Prohibiting women from peeing anywhere would be uncivil, heartless, as well as (you know) physically impossible.

  • Edwin||

    yeah, actually, the bosses wouldn't allow bathroom breaks.
    Yet another case in the annals of capitalists ruining capitalism. The free market would be great but for some reason either our business culture in particular or perhaps all such cultures always starts with the idea that the only way to engage in an industry is to be a complete dick to everyone as much as you can, and some how that will help save money or something. I was just recently watching a thingy on the HIstory channel on trains, for example, and they were talking about how the railroad industry refused for decades to implement basic rail/safety technology like couplers or brakes. They'd literally know how experienced a certain kind of rail worker was by how many fingers he'd lost, and just move through new workers as the ones they hired eventually lost too many. It turned out that after congress mandated safety precautions, the railroad owners actually got a rather fast return on their mandated investments in safety/tech.

    It's a cultural thing that may change eventually, but for now capitalists are the most active people in ruining capitalism's name.

  • sloopyinca||

    Here's a riddle: Wouldn't all transgendered people be considered "a transgendered women" or "a transgendered man"?

    Also, Google gives the squiggly red line under "transgendered". I think their bigotry against the transgendered needs to come to an end and they need to recognize that word instead of trying to get people to spellcheck it. Their hate speech code has been noted and duly reported to the nearest grievance committee.

  • Zeb||

    I think "transgender" is generally preferred to "transgendered". Though my spell check seems to be OK with both.

    I can never remember if a trans-woman started out as a man or a woman.

  • Brett L||

    cis-[sex] were born with the sex's plumbing, trans-[sex] are on the continuum between living as that sex and having been surgically altered to have the plumbing of that sex.

  • Carnival||

    A trans-woman is generally someone who was male-assigned at birth who is transitioning into a woman.

    Their current presentation is what you use.

  • sloopyinca||

    male-assigned at birth

    What the fuck does this mean? "Male-assigned"...you mean "male". As in XY.

  • Zeb||

    I haven't completely made up my mind about the whole thing, but I think the response there would be that you are conflating sex and gender. If you are born XY and with a ding dong, your sex is definitely male. Gender gets a bit more complicated. The fact that gender and sex almost always correspond doesn't mean they always have to.
    Like I said, I'm not completely attached to either way of looking at things. But I think that the idea that sex and gender are not identical is worth thinking about.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. And as far as I'm concerned, the "gender" question is none of my fucking business. People identify across a spectrum of masculinity and femininity. There are totally alpha men (in their dress, mannerisms, attractions, etc) all the way to alpha women (ditto) and everything in between. But that doesn't change their biological maleness or femaleness one single bit. From a sexual perspective you are either male or female (or hermaphrodite with Klinefelter Syndrome). From a sexuality perspective you can fall anywhere on the spectrum.

  • Carnival||

    Get it through your head sex =/= gender.

    When I say male-assigned at birth (or MAAB), what I'm saying is that someone was born with a penis, and because of that, they were assigned a male gender and brought up as a guy.

    If they feel like they identify more with women (the gender, not the sex) and want to present in that way (wear dresses, lipstick, etc), then that is totally fine.

    If they feel like they need a female body, that is also find and we can make that happen.

  • Mickey Rat||

    These facilities are segregated by SEX, not gender. If a person has a penis they should use male facilities.

  • Edwin||

    let's get this straight, it's not an issue of "feeling more like" a woman, it's in personality and brain BEING A FUCKING WOMAN. Anything less is bullshit. It's a phenomenon that RARELY occurs, but it is UNMISTAKABLE when it does. You gonna fuckin KNOW that that little boy is really a little girl. I seen it once with this kid that was in my neighborhood. I mean sexually he was a boy, but the way he acted was UNDENIABLY that in his soul he was a girl. Everyone spotted it within the first minute of meeting this kid.
    What the actual cause is, who knows?

    The other shit is more obvious, weird genitalia and hormone/enzyme deficiencies. That shit is also rare, but often the person is not strongly boy or girl in nature.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I had a friend in junior high who was XXY and born with both sets of gentialia. His parents had the doctors amputate his penis and raised (attempted to raise) him as a girl. He never thought of himself as a girl even when he didn't know about the circumstances of his assignment and afterwards he was just pissed off at his parents for picking the wrong gender.

  • ||

    So, which is worse?

    1. You, a male, take a huge, smelly, loudly gas-filled dump, punctuated by wet farts. You wipe your ass, walk out of the stall... and there's that hot chick you've had your eye on glaring at you.

    2. You're in the bathroom combing your hair. In one of the stalls, you can hear someone taking huge, smelly, loudly gas-filled dump, punctuated by wet farts. Sound of toilet paper unrolling and furious wiping. The stall door opens and it's that hot chick you've had your eye on, looking extremely embarrassed.

  • R C Dean||

    Clearly, number, err, 2.

    Downloading a huge file is its own reward.

  • Edwin||

    No. 3,
    You walk into the bathroom and that hot chick you've had your eye on is removing her tampon and slaps it on the front bathroom mirror, sticking it there, as a gag to all the other girls

  • ||

    "Gag" is the operant word.

  • Restoras||

    I wonder what the over/under was on comments for this thread.

  • Edwin||

    "What do you mean you don't have dolphin-access restrooms? This is discrimination!"

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Sorry I missed this discussion.

    And, yes, we're not choosing between a libertarian policy on private bathrooms and compulsory "segregation." We're choosing between compulsory sex-segregated bathrooms and compulsory unisex bathrooms. We've had this same discussion re SSM.

  • Zeb||

    Well, gee. Too bad you didn't show up sooner with the correct answer and save us all the trouble.

    I don't think I have a choice in the matter either way, really. Legislators don't seem to care much about my opinion on anything. But other options do exist, such as letting private businesses decide for themselves. If I didn't want to consider the less popular options, I'd go join a team and stop wasting my time with all this libertarian stuff.

  • Geoff Nathan||

    In a fascinating book (Against Security recently reviewed in Reason by Bruce Schneier) Harvey Molotch argues that unisex bathrooms are safer for both sexes, in addition to making life easier for those who are in between genders. That chapter alone is worth the price of the book, and the way he takes apart the TSA is icing on the cake. Not to mention the job he does on the New York City subway turnstiles as real safety and security hazards.
    Against Security

  • ||

    As a professional in the design and construction industry, I can tell you that the best solution would be to just let designers and owners decide what kind of restroom layout would work best for each particular instance. Shocking, I know.

  • Edwin||

    am I the only one who thinks this is a big problem for liberty because the whole issue is fucking stupid, and has been ever since that stupid california ruling at that school with the bathrooms?

    The fact that this issue gets any attention at all is what bodes badly for freedom. We'll never have a free populace if people are this retarded.

    There is no problem or issue. Have a penis? Male bathroom. But you dress like a girl? Women's bathroom, go into a stall. Dress like a girl but not very good at it and obviously a man? Men's bathroom, and you just have to accept the weird stares, you don't get everything you want in life.
    Woman dressed like a man, but no peeing standing up? Again, just go into a stall.
    In general, as long as you look like the gender you want to be, most people won't say nothin. It's incumbent on the tranny to look like it, not on us not to notice. Drag queens who have no intention of lopping their jooj off manage to pull it off. Again, you don't want people staring? Too god damned bad, you make your decisions and deal with the consequences. You're owed political freedom i.e. freedom from force, NOT social acceptance.
    THERE IS NO ISSUE HERE

  • BuSab Agent||

    ^this^

  • Mickey Rat||

    The California ruling not only applies to bsthrooms, it applies to locker rooms and sports which are arguably segregated on the basis of sex for obvious reasons rather than gender.

  • RoninX||

    Why should this be the government's business at all? And why should there be a one-size-fits-all rule? Why shouldn't private property owners be able to make whatever rules they want?

    Interestingly, this is actually an issue in Boston right now. The Boston government is forcing the organizers of the (predominantly male) Pax East gaming convention to change some of their women's bathrooms to men's bathrooms, because "safety". The organizers suggested making some of the bathrooms gender neutral, but the city said no (even though they had approved one gender-neutral bathroom near "The Diversity Lounge").

    Regardless, this is clearly a case where the privately-funded organizers of this convention should be able to set whatever policy they want, without government interference.

    http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/.....r-pax-east

  • Edwin||

    because we DO have building codes, and business owners have shown themselves to be stubborn dicks and refuse to put in sufficient bathrooms for women, who have to drop trou to go to the bathroom (taking longer).

    Not that I'm nuts for building codes, but they probably have their place, even in a libertarian society, obviously probably significantly different from what we have now, though

    The problem is a small segment of the population is crazy nuts liberal douches who have a way louder voice than normal because they don't have any actual technical skills so have to be reporters or litigious lawyers, and most media is overblown because it's illegal for the TV companies to actually know what you're watching, like they would in an actual free market.
    So those douches piss and moan about stupid shit, like trying to cater to people who number in like 1 in 10,000, for things that aren't even really issues to such people. Again, god forbid somebody once MIGHT look at the crossdresser funny in the bathroom.

  • RoninX||

    I'm not saying that there should be laws *requiring* unisex bathrooms. I'm saying there shouldn't be any laws *prohibiting* unisex bathrooms.

  • Bush League||

    Yes, comrades, we must fight for compulsory unisex bathrooms! Public ownership of the means of reproduction!

  • Mickey Rat||

    "For advocates of unisex bathrooms, building codes—not bigotry—may be the biggest obstacle."

    The major reason to think unisex restrooms are a bad idea is...bigotry? Really?

    Nothing like moral base stealing, is there?

  • Carnival||

    Given that there's no legitimate reason to oppose unisex bathrooms beyond personal feelings (and we all know how popular that argument is on Reason), yes, it is bigotry.

  • Mickey Rat||

    An expectation of a modicum of privacy is a rational feeling. Characterizing acting on that feeling as "bigotry" is a poor ad hominem argument.

  • craiginmass||

    Communal unisex is different than private unisex. The 2nd is OK, IMHO,

    As to the 1st, even my dog tends to wander away, sometimes go behind something and look around before she squats. Are humans any different?

    I posit that it's instinct - to want to feel protected at the time of elimination. What better time for the cave dwelling enemies to bust you on the head?

  • juris imprudent||

    Over 300 comments on this? No shit?

  • GroundTruth||

    Note that the MA code that started this foolishness was from the 1880's, the height of the American Victorian era. The prudishness of that era still causes confusion in the US between "gender" (as in: what parts you have, with my apologies to those who understand that "gender" itself is a linquistic concept appropriated because we can't even say "sex"! ) and "sex" (as in: the the act of fucking).

    Yes, we excrete through our reproductive parts, but that doesn't mean that we have to segregate our excretion facilities because someone might get confused about what was being done in said facilities (even if that were any of the state's business in the first place).

  • ibcbet||

    calling for you to be made to have unisex bathrooms, or just calling people that resist them, and progressive era laws that block them,

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement