Why Aren't There More Unisex Bathrooms?

Blame building codes for long lines, unhappy transgender people, grumpy business owners, and more.


Lately the transgender community's push for more gender-neutral public restrooms has drawn a fair amount of attention, support, and criticism. The proliferation of unisex bathrooms seems like a logical solution to the tricky problem of figuring out who gets to pee where. Providing restrooms where all are welcome shouldn't be compulsory; there are both logistical and ideological reasons why such a mandate is a bad idea. But what's holding us back from opening up more restroom doors?

Despite what you might think, 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 their 2009 book of essays Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender (Temple University Press). "Private, sex-segregated lavatories 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. By the 1920s, most states had passed similar laws.

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 through state and municipal building codes. These codes dictate exactly how many toilets and/or urinals buildings, businesses, and other public entities must provide-in separate men's and women's facilities.

"Restrooms are still almost exclusively gendered," wrote Shaunacy Ferro at Fast Company in April. "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.)

"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). 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." For purposes of the fixture count rules, a building's total occupancy is considered to be half male and half female.

Under the potty parity laws-first passed in California in 1987 and now implicitly incorporated into building code guidelines-public places are required to offer either an equal number of men's and women's "water closets" or, more frequently, two female toilets for each male toilet or urinal. Alaska has adopted a 2.7 to 1 ratio; Pittsburgh 3.75 to 1; Texas and Tennessee 2 to 1.

The widely-adopted IBC bathroom code relies on a complicated formulation based on occupancy and type of establishment (in stadiums with fewer than 3,000 seats, one water closet for every 75 males and 40 females in the first 1,500 seats and one for every 120 males and 60 females thereafter; one toilet per 40 occupants of any gender in restaurants, banquet halls, and food courts; at movie theaters, one male toilet for every 125 potential male occupants and one female toilet per every 65 potential female occupants, and so on).

In many places, this bathroom code labyrinth is further complicated by codes from different eras regulating different buildings. In New York City there is a 1938 code, a 1968 code, and a 2008 code, all with different bathroom requirements that apply to buildings based on when they were built. In addition to being confusing, it may disincentivize bathroom renovations, since keeping original bathroom fixtures allows buildings to continue following older building codes but updates require meeting updated regulations, too.

Right now, the most prominent advocates for gender neutral bathrooms are transgender individuals and allies. But efforts to integrate toilets have been carried out by different groups over time, and could also benefit diverse constituencies.

Unisex bathrooms "relieve a number of anxious dilemmas, such as that of a mother sending her young son alone into the men's room without her, the adult son waiting outside the door of the women's room for his Alzheimer's afflicted mother to emerge, and the wheelchair bound husband left to navigate the handicapped stall in the men's room without the help of his wife," Case notes. Not to mention women who routinely face longer public restroom lines, men whom "potty parity" laws have left with longer wait times, and anyone who's ever been inconvenienced because their assigned bathroom was undergoing cleaning with no alternative available.

There are "feminist, as well as practical efficiency payoffs" to unisex bathrooms, adds Case. "Individuals will not be forced to conform to any standard of what it is appropriate for a man or for a woman to look like in order safely to enter a public restroom."

Indeed. Existing buildings shouldn't be forced into expensive renovations to desegregate gendered bathrooms; nor should we have regulations requiring all places to give up gender-segregated facilities. But doing away with existing laws that force bathroom segregation could go a long way.

NEXT: What's at Stake in Monday's Hobby Lobby Ruling from the Supreme Court

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.

  1. With all of the problems we have and with all of the government overreach and outright tyranny, this is fucking hill you guys want to die on? Really?

    1. I didn't read this as "a hill to die on" so much as a policy proscription.

      The answer, as it often is, is to get government out of the way and allow people to experiment on their own with the best mix of segregated and neutral bathrooms.

    2. They're fundamentally unserious.

      Teh gay marriage and transgender fairness are the most important issues in the country. Not NSA domestic spying, nor endless war nor the president morphing into a literal dictator nor the weaponization of the federal bureaucracy.

      1. They have to print articles, you fucking morons. Jesus Christ if I hear one more idiot whine about them not writing articles that are THE MOST SERIOUS THINGS EVAR!11!!!11! I'm going to plotz.

        You do realize that Elizabeth (and the rest of them) has to get a certain number of articles, with probably a certain minimum amount of words in them, in to reason each week/month as a requirement of her job, right? And that she has a certain "beat" which she walks, right? Jacob has drug war. Jesse has culture stuff. Elizabeth has this stuff. Relax. It's not some conspiracy to take away your urinals or make you get married to your gay dog or anything.

        1. married to your gay dog

          That's the Jacket's beat

          1. I thought Nick's beat was going to cocktail parties. Orange Line Mafia!!!

            You know, I really miss LoneMoron.

            1. Gillespie was roughing it, last night. Or was it the night bfore? Shit, I can't remember.

              Not too many cocktail parties in Lancaster, NH.

              1. Lancaster is close enough to Whitefield, and I've been to a few cocktail parties at the Mountain View Grand.

                1. That is close. I didn't even notice if Nick hungout here after his speech, or not. Jeff Tucker and Bob Murphy have been around. Even with the urine soaked bathroom floors, this is still the place to be.

                2. Mountain View Grand.

                  aka The Outlook East. Good place to write a novel.

                3. I see your NH Mountain-View Wasp Fortress, and Raise you 1 Mohunk Mountain House.

            2. I thought El Shaquefourd had the gay articles.

              FWIW, I'm definitely in the "Not this shit again" crowd. Even in LGBT circles there's more important stuff going on.

              1. Yeah, like "Buzz's Big Gay Dance Party"


                1. I'm disappointed that I won't be ab;e to attend the survivalist vs. prepper vs. self-reliance forum.

        2. Quantity over quality always works out really well for journalists.

        3. Yes, it is a conspiracy:

          1. Soon they'll stop being completely gay in the Navy. Somewhere, there's some village people shedding a tear.

        4. " And that she has a certain "beat" which she walks, right? Jacob has drug war. Jesse has culture stuff. Elizabeth has..."

          ...Toilets for 'women' with dicks.

          (* or just people who 'gender identify' differently)

          yeah, epi, i'm siding with the grumpy old guys on this one. Giving this stupid issue the slightest attention is a waste of ENB's professional time, and it degrades her mental faculties by forcing her into desperate rationalizations as to why its supposed to be a matter of grave concern to the cis-triarchy (i.e. 'everyone').

          The net result of all this is just going to be a hole in the ground full of pee and poo. And they'll call it *victory*.

          1. I call it Saturday night.

          2. a hole in the ground full of pee and poo

            I call it "my back yard." Of course, I have five dogs, so....dogs gonna pee and poo, yo...

            1. Oh, PS. I have both male and female dogs, and they pee and poo together, so ELIZABETH IS RIGHT, GRUMPY OLD MEN.

              And stop stepping on my GOM toes - that's my beat.

              1. If you have bitches, then I assume you have no lawn. Female dog urine seems to have grass killing qualities that rival RoundUp.

                1. It's definitely....spotty.

          3. So all your griefing is out of concern for Elizabeth's career? What a humanitarian!

            1. But seriously... the indignity = Matt Welch is off vacationing in France, and ENB gets the late nite Friday memo = "hey, BTW- make sure to cut into your quality weekend time by writing a piece on the tranny-toilets thing. Thnx Kaybai!"

      2. Except that reason covers the NSA, the military-industrial complex, the President, and federal government every single day. Along with stories about gay marriage.

        1. AND Lou Reed's death.

          1. AND Game of Thrones, not enough of that lately, either.

      3. You're being fundamentally stupid. Talking about something =/= dying on it as a hill.

        1. This.

          All she is saying is "I took a look at segregated bathrooms, and I questioned their existence. Solve the problem with less government..." Why is this so goddamn painful for you to read?!

          1. ""Why is this so goddamn painful for you to read?!""

            fwiw, If you dare to read comments at the Femtardblogswamp of wherever Marcotte happens to be published, the standard retort to anyone who dares question the logic or sanity of (say) California's new 'anything without a signed contract is Campus Rape' legislation! is,

            "What is so hard for you to understand about 'consent'?! UNLESS THERE IS CONSENT, ITS RAPE!! Why are YOU being so intractable!??"

            They really seem to think that all and any objection to State Enforced Sex Approval Documenataion is some kind of Pro-Rape position. Or, at least that's their rhetorical game they play -

            "why are you being so obtuse!?"
            - as response to people asking straightforward questions.

            Its a way of refusing to admit or acknowledge the obvious criticisms.

            In the case of the Unisex bathrooms - i do not see this as 'less government' at all, as per some others notes. Not that i give a shit really. I am Man-see me urinate everywhere!

            My main complaint is that there has been a trend of late to elevate "The Transgender Community" to some position of primacy in our national debates about Stuff. i have yet to hear any actual Trans people themselves standing up and making an issue out of anything. It all seems to me to be the Progs simply using another arbitrary "victim class" to try and gain yet more leverage in public policy.

    3. Good grief, John, it's just a typical Kultur Warz Saturday at Reason. Have a few beers and fucking relax. Your blood pressure will thank you.

    4. As I was reading the article this was my exact thought I was going to post.

    5. Keerist in a bucket, have you got your panties in a twist!

      Go soak your head somewhere until you cool off.

      Tell you what, you come up with a prioritized list, designating how many words per day for each tyranny.

      Or is your particular death hill going to be the unreasonableness of other people's death hills?

      * shakes head at John's increasing irritability at other people having their own opinions *

      1. Except this isn't a 'tyranny' of any kind, nor an 'issue' which requires any attention. Can we *not* have Reason turn into the libertarian-lite version of Jezebel?

        1. Apparently you'll need to write your own prioritized list as we'll.

          C'mon, guys. The government sucks. But it's not the only cause for discussions about freedom.

          Heck, I'll pee on a tree next to a lesbian goat herder. I don't have a pony in the Restroom Stakes. But I appreciate the plight of anyone trying to express an affront to their expression freedom. I didn't know an thing about raw milk cooperatives or Uber until I read about it here. And I'm not likely to be a party to either. But it doesn't mean that their expression is unworthy.

          1. raw milk

            After giving raw milk a try, I'm convinced the only difference is mouthfeel. I really didn't notice a huge difference in taste. Maybe I had really good pasteurized milk or really bad raw.

            1. Uh....if you didn't notice much difference in taste then something was wrong.

              Raw milk has a 'cow' taste similar to the smell of raw steak or blood....or the smell of a cow barn....it has a lot of cowness in it that pasteurized does not. Even fresh cow shit....if you are around cattle for a while you will notice that the animals have their own smell/taste. All animals are like that, even people, having a distinct metabolism gives a distinct flavor.

              It is difficult to describe as it tastes like nothing else.

              1. I'll entertain the notion that my tongue is broken.

                When I think of the smell of a cow barn, I remember freshly-cut grass mixed with an ammonia-y shit smell mixed with an almost mineral-y smell. Is that what you're talking about?

            2. My dad is very particular about buying raw milk, but it happened after I moved out and no longer did all of the grocery shopping, so I haven't tried it. Maybe I'll raid his fridge when I'm over there for the 4th.

              I did have raw cream with my coffee at a place in New Orleans and it had a nice richness to it with occasional lumps that one person in our group found offputting but everyone else seemed satisfied with.

              1. I did have raw cream...with occasional lumps


                1. Don't be coarse, Episiarch, that's your mother's turf.

          2. ...an thing...

            a, e, I, o, u, and sometimes t *hangs head*

          3. " I'll pee on a tree next to a lesbian goat herder"


    6. It's more interesting than the soccer commentary.


    7. This.

      I can answer the question posed in the headline immediately - fucking no one wants it that way. What a useless, stupid article. Chapman and Richman have serious competition already with ENB. So she's precocious!

    8. I disagree John. The trannies are pushing it so it will probably be the next big thing on Progressive's agenda. (nothing against trannies by the way, just another special interests group).

      Unisex bathrooms may work fine for small bathrooms with one or two stalls and in fact I do see more and more of this where you may have 1 men's, one women's, and one uni-sex which is also the handicapped bathroom.

      The problem is with large bathrooms, you now can't have urinals unless they have a privacy barrier so it is less efficient. There is also the discomfort factor. Maybe this is not what people want. Of course, if the authoritahs remove laws so that they allow choice, it will work itself out over time. Of course, that will never happen, people being what they are (ignorant and authoritarian for the most part). Unisex bathrooms also make things like changing a shirt or washing out food or wine you spilled on it much harder unless the sinks also are in stalls. I prefer same sex bathrooms, myself if they are larger than two seaters.

  2. Well, the CA GOP seems to take quite an interest in which toilet little Sammy gets to pee in, so it's an issue larger than Reason Mag.

    1. LOL

      You got that exactly backwards. Its the proglodytes in the state that are obsessed with trasgendered pre-pubescent kids.

      1. "The group pushing the referendum to overturn California's recently enacted law to open school showers, bathrooms and locker rooms to members of the opposite sex took a huge step forward yesterday when it was announced that a random sample of signatures submitted showed they have collected enough valid signatures to advance to the next stage of the verification process - a full check of every signature submitted."

        Are those proggies art of the El Dorado GOP?

        1. The group pushing the referendum to overturn California's recently enacted law to open school showers, bathrooms and locker rooms to members of the opposite sex

          As always, the socons are reacting to an invasive government policy.

          Note that the recently enacted law was not deregulation, nor did it leave the designation up to individual schools or districts. Nope, it created a new statewide standard that 80%+ of the population opposes.

          But yea, it's totally the socons that are making school bathrooms into a political issue and not crazy progs.

          1. "The group pushing the referendum to overturn California's recently enacted law"

            Uh, did you read my OP?
            "Well, the CA GOP seems to take quite an interest in which toilet little Sammy gets to pee in,"
            If they're not interested, why are they gathering signatures?

            1. Ok, I get it.

              You're fucking retarded.

              I'll keep that in mind in the future.

              1. VG Zaytsev|6.28.14 @ 1:10PM|#
                "Ok, I get it.
                You're fucking retarded."

                Asshole, your lack of reading ability ain't my problem.

                1. You said the SoCons are to blame, when in fact they are not. You are just trying to save face now because you clearly didn't read your own article.

                  1. New Normal|6.28.14 @ 7:42PM|#
                    "You said the SoCons are to blame, when in fact they are not."

                    If you are posting to me, I said nothing of the sort.
                    Try reading.

  3. let my people go, lol


    1. Let my pee pole go!

  4. Women.

    They don't want men in their bathrooms.

    1. Yeah even though lgtg tend to have a united front on a lot of issues, I can't imagine a lot of lesbians wanting men in their bathrooms.

      1. Lesbians don't want men and straight women (well most of them) don't want adolescent boys in their bathrooms.

    2. True. It would be perv-central.

  5. Brazil 1-0 Chile
    David Luiz (or a Chile own goal)


    1. Definitely own goal. Sucks for Chile. They had a real chance, but once Brazil scores first, at home, you're in trouble.

  6. What about locker rooms?

    Sometimes I feel like I'm a young, nubile co-ed on the inside.

    Or was it, sometimes I feel like I want to be inside a young nubile co-ed? Maybe it was that...

  7. Did it occur to you, Ms. Brown, that gendered bathrooms were codified in law because people liked it that way? Reading this article makes me wonder whether you've ever actually been in a public restroom. In case not, let me clue you in: there are a substantial number of men out there who are too lazy or too squeamish to lift the seat before they take care of business, the result of which, in any bathroom that gets semi frequent use or isn't cleaned multiple times per day, is typically urine-splattered toilet seats unusable by anyone except another man who intends to remain standing the entire time. If this is what you want to expose yourself to if/when you ever decide to join the real world and visit a public place, all to relieve the anxiety of a tiny collection of misfits comprising maybe one three thousandth of the population, then you, my dear, have some pretty messed up priorities.

    1. Did it occur to you, Ms. Brown, that gendered bathrooms were codified in law because people liked it that way?

      If we're talking about my property, what people like shouldn't mean a fucking thing with regard to law.

      And you, JEFF, can take your sob story about having to sit down to pee and peddle it to someone who gives a shit.

      1. My point is that our dear author's articleattempts to paint gendered bathrooms as both an instance of government overreach as well as an anachronism left over from the bad old sexist days of patriarchy and probably racism, too. But a careful reader, ie, not you, apparently, will quickly note that this falls apart pretty fast when reading that the first laws put into place were to ensure that women in the workplace had the necessary accommodations, and proliferated during the twenties, precisely when women got the vote and began flexing some political muscle.

        What this suggests to me, ie, the careful reader, is that people prefer separate bathrooms, men and women alike, and for pretty obvious reasons of hygiene and privacy, so the esteemed Ms. Brown's attempt to portray doing away with them as some sort of righteous blow waiting to be struck against the patriarchy is dubious at best and laughable at worst.

        All this was more or less evident in my first comment, but I guess further explication is sometimes necessary for those on the left end of the bell curve. But you're welcome, nonetheless.

        1. 1) There really are people (women) in the world who will view this as a blow to the patriarchy and a win for female rights.

          2) The point of his reply was that it shouldn't be a LAW. The fact is that people should be able to put whatever type of bathrooms they like on their property or in their business.

          3) I don't give one shit what most people like. If I want to build a unisex bathroom, three womens restrooms, or just a hole in the floor leading to a sewage pipe, the government, and YOU, can go fuck yourselves if you want to change it.

          1. Give everyone a 5 gallon bucket, a bottle of bleach and a hose, and let them shit behind the dumpster.

            1. THIS IS THE FUTURE!

          2. Again with the reading comprehension issues. I made no comments on the desirability of such laws. I agree with you about the desirability of strong property rights, but ask yourself if making a convoluted, confused argument about transgenders and their bathroom awkwardness is a useful way to (heh) engender greater respect and support for those property rights. I'll save you the trouble: the answer is no. The end result of this kind of thinking will be that instead of all public buildings having to provide separate facilities for men and women, we'll get a new set of laws saying all bathrooms have to be unisex because any alternative makes the gender dysphoric feel bad. Swap one set of dumb edicts for another, call it progress, and hang another scalp on the wall at the Swarthmore LGBT Students Association wall. Lather, rinse, repeat.

            1. I agree. It IS stupid.

            2. Well said, here and above.

    2. Spoken like someone who's never had to clean women's public restrooms. They can make men's rooms look positively immaculate by comparison.

      1. As someone who DOES clean public restrooms, Scruffy, I absolutely concur. No way do I want to have to share restrooms with women. At the end of a busy day, a women's public restroom looks like a scene from a cheap horror movie.

        1. My God. What the heck do they do?

    3. that gendered bathrooms were codified in law because people liked it that way?

      This is just asinine.

      If people like it that way - then it *doesn't need to be codified in law* - people will do it that way on their own.

      You don't need to make laws forcing people to do what they want to do.

      1. Except when people have to be educated as to what they like. That's the purpose of laws, see. Enlightenment was an age and it leadeth us to greener pastures.

  8. We already have unisex bathrooms. They're called bushes.

  9. Damn, now I have to pee.

  10. Get up, Neymar, you pussy.

    That was your own fault for going in the air after a shitty touch.

    1. 1-1!!!!!


    Brazil 1:1 Chile


    1. Was that the incomparable Hulk with the mistake at the back for Brazil?

  12. "It's a form of exclusion that's written into state building code, presenting an obstacle for gender neutral bathroom advocates."

    "It's a form of exclusion that's written into the federal tax code, presenting an obstacle for flat tax advocates."

  13. Holy shit, Neymar nearly with the headed goal.

    1. Chile, what the hell was that? Keeper nearly at the 18 for no apparent reason...barely cleared.

  14. WOW.

    Brazil looks VERY sloppy at the back. Nearly conceded on the stroke of halftime, bailed out by desperation defending.

    1. Oh my god. Enough with the soccer.

      Stop. Please. Just stop.

      1. I'd really rather not.

      2. I have to assume he spends the other three years and x months posting libertarian non sequiturs on soccer blogs, so this is the punishment we have to endure for the sake of parity.

        1. Hmm...not sure about the non-sequitur part, but basically. I mostly lurk here because there's too much cosmo/neo-con-lite infighting and it's all a bit silly.

          That and work.

          1. So your response to all the noise is...more noise?

            1. Wait, what?

              I thought weekend thread were pretty much open here. It's all noise.

              So in short, yes.

              1. I thought weekend thread were pretty much open here. It's all noise.

                I like to think of it as a million monkeys with laptops churning out brilliance.

            2. Lighten up, Hugh. At least he's not talking about your mom.

            3. Yeah, that made sense.

              also, no one handed out jerseys = which team am i on? I guess i think the transtoiletfreedom is stupid, so that makes me a neocon-lite?

              What color are the jerseys? I vote Black w/Gold Trim, and we have a ChickenHawk for a mascot.

              1. I didn't mean THIS thread in particular was a cosmo/neocon-lite thing. Sheesh.



                  1. Troughs for all!

                    Municipal Stadium had it right!

                    1. "Troughs" are patriarchical and transphobic dude, please.

                      True respect for the polygendered means we all get the same floor-hole for our business. It is utilitarian, gender-neutral, and architecturally efficient.

                    2. Also very Turkish/Arab.

                    3. "Timon 19|6.28.14 @ 2:13PM|#

                      Also very Turkish/Arab."

                      Turk = "Amcik agizli! Did this son of a donkey just call me an Arab?! KILL IT!""

                      Arab = "Ibn metnakah! This infidel has compared us to the Turks!? SLAUGHTER THEIR CHILDREN!!"

                    4. Besides, the both stole their toilet construction methods from the Persians.

                    5. Now you've done it, HM.

                    6. Don't blame me. I'm just here to escape the "SCIENCE demands abortions!" lunatic in the other thread.

                    7. You wanna see something REALLY strange from the other thread?


                    8. Hmmm, somebody thought that was a good use of their time...

                    9. Haha. Would they ever admit they have the same toilet scheme?

                    10. True respect for the polygendered means we all get the same floor-hole for our business.

                      I see you've been to China too.

                    11. So, hole with or without hose-end sprayer for extra cleansing power?

                    12. I think the politics of The Hose are extremely complicated and will need to be debated by a Community of Experts before we can know what the apropos, gender-neutral form of genital-wiping/cleansing is allowed to be.

                    13. What about a Roomba with an extension arm fitted to it with a reusable cloth?

                      Each person will have to maneuver appropriately to wipe themselves if desired.

                    14. The Community of Rhoomba-Rights-Advocates are deeply troubled by your suggestion

          2. I, too, like to blog from work.

            If that's the case, then freely blog away. I'll complain no longer. 😀

      3. Up next: unisex soccer with transgender referees

        Where do you stand on this issue?

        1. Far, far away. Because - soccer is de debil.

          1. I thought foozball is de debil.

  15. Brazil 1:1 Chile


  16. "water closets" or, more frequently, two female toilets for each male toilet or urinal. ....Pittsburgh 3.75 to 1...

    Where do you get this 3.75 from? It's 2 female toilets per 1 urinal and 1 toilet per male.


    In Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, we are required to go to 4 years of apprenticeship school (576 hours) along with 8,000 work hours under a registered master plumber, pass journeyman's test, 2 more years (4,000 work hours) working as a journeyman under a master plumber. Then take a master plumbers test and if you pass, you can finally open your own company in Allegheny county. Hoooraaaay freedom!

    1. Well, at least you are taking the plunge. And although it seems like a toil at first, those six years will not have gone down the drain. In a few years, when you are flush with cash, you can look back and feel satisfied at all the hard work you've done.

      1. See, now he's gone and and killed himself in despair.

        Who wants to live in a world with those puns? Who?!

  17. "potty parity" laws? Seriously?

  18. Laurence Tribe - a liberal law professor with hardline choicer views - agrees with the Supreme Court that the Massachusetts buffer zone law violates the First Amendment.

    But professor Tribe goes further, supporting the views of the conservative Justices, whose jurisprudence he usually opposes:

    "In his quest to bring all his colleagues on board, Chief Justice Roberts wrote an opinion that implausibly described the Massachusetts statute as neutral as between anti-abortion speech and abortion rights speech ? a neutrality that four conservative justices rightly dismissed as illusory, revealing a court sharply divided beneath its veneer of unanimity.

    "Justice Antonin Scalia, the most forceful of the conservatives, correctly criticized this sleight-of-hand in his concurrence with Chief Justice Roberts, arguing convincingly, as did Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., that the law at issue was anything but neutral toward the content of the speech at issue but represented a form of censorship. Justice Scalia and the justices joining him, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, worried that a spurious unanimity by the court would encourage other jurisdictions to attempt, and get away with, similar sorts of discrimination favoring some kinds of speech over others."


  19. Ongoing immigration crisis, fiscal crisis, crises overseas, government attacks on the bill of rights, abuse of powers by the executive branch.... and worst of all by golly 0.01% of the country urgently needs more unisex bathrooms (presumably not the poorly maintained kind you'll find 15 miles ouside the city limits of Spivey's Corner, NC). If Liberaltarians are still wondering why they aren't in mainstream of American politics, they should give up and go home.

    1. Reason covers those things every day. They also cover things like food truck regulations, ridesharing companies being sued out of existence, hair braiding licenses, casket cartels, police militarization, eminent domain abuse, etc etc etc. Things that affect vanishingly small minorities of the population.

      Why are so many people getting their panties in a knot over one article? Don't you people have anything more productive to say?

      1. They're too busy looking for the bathroom to think about it.

    2. "If Liberaltarians are still wondering why they aren't in mainstream of American politics, they should give up and go home."

      True of the CA GOP also:
      "The group pushing the referendum to overturn California's recently enacted law to open school showers, bathrooms and locker rooms to members of the opposite sex took a huge step forward yesterday when it was announced that a random sample of signatures submitted showed they have collected enough valid signatures to advance to the next stage of the verification process"

      1. Yawn. Which party is a bigger political force in CA? The GOP or the Libertarians? The fact that the GOP is stuck in the minority (and libertarians are always hoping to siphon votes away from that same party and not the free stuff party) just helps to illustrate how utterly irrelevant libertarians are to any issue voters care about.

    3. As a libertarian, I try to stay as far away from "mainstream American politics" as possible.

      Personally, I can not envision using the broken political system in the US to "repair" the broken political system in the US.

      It kinda sounds stupid when you say it like that, dontch think?

      1. Okidoke, join a guerilla group then, or save up your bitcoins and buy an abandoned platform in the middle of the pacific. Good riddance to ya.

        1. So, you like the "system" we have, and you think you can "change" it, for the betterment of all Mankind? Do you really think that the government , any government will ever care about you, or are you just worried about losing your Medicare and Social Security check?

          The government doesn't give a rats ass about you, and it never will.

        2. You didn't answer my question.

    4. I like reading about these 'insignificant' articles. If you're messing around with the small stuff, it's no surprise the abuse we see on a larger scale.

      By covering the these issues, it helps to keep citizens vigilant.

      1. No ones allowed to smoke or tell a dirty joke and whistling is forbidden. If chewing gum is chewed, the chewer is pursued and in the hoosegow hidden.

  20. "the transgender community"

    Do they have their own golf course or volunteer fire department? Because if not, I declare there to be no such thing as a 'transgender community'. Any more than there's a 'redhead community' or 'community of left-handed dentists'. When they start all paying dues, call me back and prove me wrong.

    1. Ah, the "dues" definition of community.

      There's no finer way to be a hateful jackass.

      1. Why do we only call things 'communities' when they are groups that demand special treatment - when there's tons of people out there with 'similar qualities' who don't bother demanding group-identification?

        Its a pure rhetorical gimmick anthropomorphizing a group of people and pretending they are some coherent entity.

        1. "Society" is the new "community". So, they had to use "community" for something.

    2. Do they have their own golf course

      You forgot this fiasco? Really?

      1. ""I want to apologize. I failed," Simmons writes. "I realized over the weekend that I didn't know nearly enough about the transgender community ? and neither does my staff.""



      2. A side note =

        The Guardian allows anyone to 'report' on any comment as being a violation of some 'community policy'

        (*noting = finding out what the actual 'community policy' IS is far harder than actually just 'reporting' people for violating 'it')

        So, for fun, I accused about a dozen people of crypto-transphobic remarks.

        Isn't it great how that works!? COMMUNITY FTW!!

  21. NewsBusters whines about the New York Times' impartial and fair coverage of the NY soda ban:


  22. Hulk scores from nowhere...

    HAHAHA!!! Denied! He handled the ball!

    Hulk has been booked. And he definitely handled it. Trapped down with the bicep.

    1. I gotta say... I don't care if Brazil or Chile wins this one.

      1. I think it would be great if Chile won. They're fun to watch.

        They're having a better second half than Brazil, that's for sure.

  23. Good fucking grief.

    As someone who doesn't care at all where anybody puts there stuff, but also as somebody who had to sit through a gay tolerance lunch and learn last week, and also as someone with authority issues who has had it with the "right to not be offended or inconvenienced in any way, I just want to say to all you griefers, "Fuck you and have a nice day!"

  24. I googled 'Cis-triarchy'

    and got this


    there is some funny trolling there.

    e.g. =



    Having breastfeeding classes that are "women only" erases the lived experience of many fathers who become pregnant and choose to breastfeed. It is incredibly ciscentric and all that's required is a simple change of language. This class could easily be called "Breastfeeding Parent Only Class". This the kind of thing the NHS is spending it's money on. No wonder little girls think that females have veginas and bobes. Cis privilege is all around.

    veginas and bobes

    do you think this is a joke???

    little girls should not be taught in school that females have veginas and bobes


    (Source: , via frostrune)"

  25. Jo whiffs on a cross. Probably was offside anyway.

  26. Neymar heads straight at the keeper.

    Brazil has had a terrible second half, but has managed to get multiple dangerous chances completely out of nothing.

    Fun game.

    9 minutes plus stoppage.

  27. Because I'm not comfortable sending my 12yr old daughter into a room where a bunch of creepy old men are exposing themselves by design?

    1. Stop othering Old Man with Candy

    2. Chatroulette FTW!

    3. So you should be able to tell others what to do with their property? FOR TEH CHILDREN?

    4. That's also asinine.

      You're giving into the pedo-panic. Just keep here away from the cops and she'll be fine.

      1. I don't think he's necessarily saying that he wants to legally enforce sex segregated bathrooms, just that he isn't comfortable sending his young daughter into a multi-occupant unisex one.

    5. Why don't you just have a childrens bathroom, complete with sparkly floors, gold stars covering the walls, and Pisso the Clown?

      The possibilities are endless!

      1. Pisso the Clown??!!! No please! Not again!!

        -two decades of therapy, shot.

  28. Refuse an alcohol breath test July 4? Expect to give blood

    Blood draw warrants for Oregon drivers who refuse alcohol breath tests.

    1. The legal ramifications behind the police being able to steal your blood is just. . .it's almost too much to even think about.

      I don't think it'll be much longer before we see a case deciding how much blood the police can take before it becomes murder.

      I could see a pissed off cop drawing three pints from someone, then refusing him medical treatment and leaving him suffer in a jail cell.

      I could see this as another way to torture and kill people who don't respect authority.

      1. "This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
        The words expressly are 'a pound of flesh:'
        Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh;
        But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed
        One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
        Are, by the laws of Venice, confiscate
        Unto the state of Venice."

  29. Bravo stood on his head to deny Hulk, who had the best chance yet.

  30. Fucking MotoGP in Assen today - rain, no rain, shit, I don't know.

    Pretty sure I don't know if they have unisex/non-sex/non-cis/run-what-ya-brung baffrooms there, but it is the Netherlands, so Ima go with "quite possibly".

    Piss on all you whining griefers, and may a trans-gendered "it" going by the name of "Hex" in honor of its hero drop a deuce on your porch.

    Happy Saturday, Reasonoids!

  31. This reminds me of a funny situation in the local bar where i play pool =

    there were men's and women's restrooms. One was fairly clean (guess) and the other was a biological crime scene.

    However, when the bar got crowded, men would simply use the women's toilet. There was always the shrug of apology when they exited. The women, they complained = they were getting less than 1/2 the access they deserved.

    it was decided to make both bathrooms 'unisex'.

    Now there are two filthy toilets with graffiti and pee everywhere.


  32. Having had job that required me to clean both men and women's restrooms, I noticed that the women's room was always more disgusting and dirty compared to the men's.

    I would prefer segregated restrooms minus any coercive laws that apply to private property. If it ain't broke why fix it?

    1. Every custodial engineer I've spoken to has said the same thing.

      1. My summer jobs in amusement parks are a testament to the same. When the women were not at work and the men had to cover for them by cleaning the ladies restrooms, we would draw straws.

        1. There was stuff worth sucking up?

          Or were you using illustrations to make a point?

        2. My summer job experiences in a state park also corroborate this.

    2. It depends on the establishment and which restrooms get more foot traffic. Retail and restaurants = dirtier women's restrooms. Bars and places with drunk crowds = dirtier men's restrooms.

      1. IDK, I was barkeep in the French Quarter for a little more than a decade. In my daily experience, the female bathroom was ALWAYS far filthier than its male counterpart.

        1. I bet, for whatever reason, the female bathroom saw more foot traffic...which still kind of proves my point.

          1. The reason I say men's bathrooms, in places with drunks, tend to get more foot traffic is because men have a higher alcohol tolerance on average, so they stay at bars longer.

  33. Perhaps the article could be reframed as "There's Just Too Much Shit in the Building Code"

    When the building code mandates that knobs are verboten and levers are mandatory, I think it's gone a little too far.

    1. So much fucking this.

  34. Brazil should be happy to see full time. They are not looking very good.

    Brazil 1:1 Chile
    Full Time

    30 minutes of bonus football to come.

    1. I got Nigeria in the pool at work, did I just make a 50 dollar donation or do they have a shot?

      1. Probably a donation. France has been excellent and Nigeria keeps getting bad news from home. That's got to wear on them.

        Plus, Nigeria really isn't that great. We beat them pretty handily about a month ago.

  35. Jeeze, Red Tony is really losing his shit this weekend. What's with all the TEAM RED derp in this thread?

  36. First period of extra time nearly over. Brazil has been better, but not a lot.

  37. Sup folks.

    I have finally uploaded a new version of my Firefox extension fascr (an extension similar to the Reasonable extension for Chrome).

    The most notable new feature, which I find quite nifty, is that when there are unread posts, you can key forward through them with "shift-alt-j" and backward with "shift-alt-k".

    Please note that performance is pretty cruddy without AdBlock or similar, because some parts of the extension wait until the entire page has loaded. Please donate to Reason instead.

    Also, some changes Reason made in the wake of Squirrel-ocaplypse June 2014 mean that comment auto-expansion works inconsistently, if at all.

    Note also that some internal changes made for the sake of a future feature means that it will forget all read/unread distinctions from previous versions.

    I have not spent much time testing it, so this release is designated "alpha". Please bear with me.

  38. To the aggrieved:

    Get over yourselves.


    The Rest Of Us

    1. (Ahem) - 'Aggrieved *community*', please?

  39. Chile almost seem to be time-wasting, happy to take their chances in a shootout.

    I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.

  40. Let's break this down quickly. If you think I should be forced to have x# of restrooms in my business you don't believe in restroom freedom! You believe in restroom tyranny that comports to your wishes. That is not a libertarian stance. Private businesses should be just that; Private.

    If you're talking about government equality then make every restroom a single person unisex restroom or a Port-O-John.

    Otherwise you end up sounding the CA jackasses that claim that colleges are full of rapists but that would never happen in a restroom so let's let students choose which water closet to frequent because teh cis-culture needs to be dismantled.

  41. Ugh. Penalties on the way...

  42. Journalist fired from Pando wrote article about how the media isn't at all oppositional.

    What I can still do is draw attention to an absurdity: That there are thousands of journalists representing 100s of media outlets who've agreed to keep a secret and not report on something because the US government asked them to. It's not much of a secret now that you can quickly Google it, anyway, but the point is that American media is currying favor and taking orders from a government. The same government that so routinely lies to them.

    1. Yeah, but this is Ted "I want to protect the royalties for the book I wrote advocating a communist revolution" Rall. There's bound to be some stuff he's not saying about it.

  43. Holy mother of Christ, Chile smashes one off the crossbar in the last minute of extra time. Unbelievable.

    Two minutes of stoppage.

    1. You try and you try don't you, but the oafs keep watching the MLB game of the week.

  44. It seems unlikely that all, or even most, businesses would replace gender segregated bathrooms with multi-occupant unisex bathrooms just because they're no longer legally forced to have them. Most customers and employees would hate that.

    1. Most customers and employees are transphobic cis-scum and need to be forced to comply with laws that show proper respect to "Communities" of transfolk.

      1. As long as it saves one feeling, it's all worth it.

  45. Shit.

    Brazil 1:1 Chile

    Penalties on the way.

    1. Face it dude. The World Cup is like the Summer Olympics. For two weeks after every kid wants to be a butterfly swimmer. Then reality sinks in and the little fucker grabs a Rawlings mitt and hits the diamond.

      In two weeks you won't find a reference to the World Cup in any major publication.

  46. Holy smokes. Copacabana Beach is a mass of humanity.

    If Brazil fails to win this, there could be trouble.

  47. I kinda like those bathrooms where it's a shared block of sinks and then a bunch of individual closet sized rooms with toilets in them. They seem the most efficient. Is that a unisex bathroom? I see them a lot.

    Also, ENB is good at stirring up shit (no pun intended) with her posts and I like that.

    1. Also, ENB is good at stirring up shit (no pun intended) with her posts and I like that.

      Elizabeth's post deals with a topic that doesn't expressly appeal to the demographic of which I am a part! How dare she!

      1. Also, it's not about a super-serious topic that's already been covered multiple times per day. COSMOTARIAN!!!

  48. To the aggrieved:

    Get over yourselves.


    The Rest Of Us

    I'll HUFF

    and I'll PUFF


  49. Luiz...goal.



  50. Willian...missed!!!


    1-0 Brazil after 2.

    Julio Cesar is looking good.

  51. Marcelo...goal.

    Aranguis...goal...roof of the net...that's confidence.

    2-1 Brazil after 3.

  52. Hulk...saved!!!!!


    2-2 after 4.

  53. Neymar...goal.


    Brazil escape.


    1. Well, Brazil look beatable by... pretty much any other team that's left - if that's any consolation.

      1. True. Colombia better get it done today.

        1. Should be doable without you-know-who.

          1. Apparently you know who simply lost his balance:


            1. "My choppers accidentally sunk themselves into his shoulder."

              1. He really, really just needs to admit he's got a problem. All this excuse-making and denial is tremendously pathetic.

      2. Been saying that since Confed Cup. People were handing the trophy to Brazil (and then Argentina and Germany) without looking at the field objectively. I personally don't think either of them are outright favorites.

        This was a WC meant to have surprises and this game only confirmed my point Brazil is not only average but beatable.

        They got lucky Pinilla hit the cross bar to boot.

    2. Two unrelated thoughts:

      Chile did not look good on the penalties. Whoever plays Brazil next should go after El Hulk. He didn't have a good game.

      1. They both looked terrible on penalties. Worse Brazilian side I've seen since 1982 taking penalties.

        Hulk is an inconsistent player.

        1. Don't make him angry... You won't like him when he's angry.

          1. Hulk smash!

  54. America's quiet economic-political revolution continues.

    1) DC city council accepts need for 'neo-liberal' tax competition by 12-1 margin. The mayor hasn't signed it yet and could reject it but that's beside the point: even the bluiest of Team Blue is buckling under to market-based realities.


    2) I've heard people here say that NY City will always have the finance sector to milk no matter how hard they abuse that golden egg-laying goose (mixed that metaphor good and hard). Not according to the data: Wall Street has fewer finance jobs that before 2009 and Phoenix, Salt Lake, and other lower-tax lower cost of living jurisdictions particularly in the Southeast Sun Belt are rapidly increasing their numbers of finance jobs, even taking the more elite upper-management ones from Wall Street. NYC is still dominant, but that can change.


    1. Good stuff.

    2. I would suggest Dallas or Kansas City as the new financial center of America, but the retards that would move from NYC here would end up turning us deep blue and then wondering why everything that was good here has turned to shit.

  55. Rherically ENB articles shares a problem with its sister articles appealing to Christian or white nationalists on Lew Rockwell, which is this:

    You can point to specific policies and outcomes as a way to convince those of other ideologies to doubt their own position and the ability of their ideology to secure a certain outcome. You cannot cede or agree with the concerns of the aggrieved on a regular basis without confirming the basis on which they consider their ideology as superior to your own.

    In this case, the article starts by assuming the reasoning of the aggrieved (gender-segregated bathrooms = bad, unisex = good for the reasons suggested by progs). It then suggests that a free-market solution is plausible (end building codes). If you are not part of the aggrieved, you've already hopped off the train either because you're not interested or are insulted by the reasoning at play. If you are, you are still not convinced -- the free market cannot possibly guarantee 'bathroom parity' in workspaces; a government mandate might be able to. At best, you will convince them that the free market has a mildly positive but insufficient remedy to their problem. Since you have agreed with them on their overall philosophy, they can conclude that your solution is not as good as theirs and move on with the rest of their day.

    1. These articles will not convince anyone anymore than right-libertarians who promise a more 'Christian' society at the end of the free market rainbow: they have no basis on which to fulfill or expect the completion of that promise, and the aggrieved can always find a more direct route to what they want.

  56. I'm all for unisex heads as long as they are maintained at the cleanliness level that women's bathrooms generally have over men's. I have seen facilities where the men's were not much more then a hole in the floor and the women's had potted plants, upholstered furniture, clean terry towels, and free stuff.

  57. If anyone knows why it sucks to follow a dude into the bathroom, trans-women are probably it.

  58. Everyone is missing the real outrage here. Am I the only one who hates the word 'unisex'? The word should mean one sex. A men's bathroom allows only men, so clearly it's unisex, right? And the same for women's bathrooms, right? But a "unisex" bathroom allows both sexes. It's clearly bisex then, not unisex. GODDAMMIT.

    1. Alternatively, it could be plurigender.

      1. But gender is a social construct invented by racist white men, you cisfuckface.

        1. "Pan-social-construct restrooms", then?

          1. We could just call them "pissers".

            1. I prefer cissers.

              1. Pretty sneaky, cis

            2. Soccer fans would call them "pissoirs"

          2. "Pan" is Satyrphobic

            the Hairy-Legged Short-Goatlike-Men Community objects to this demeaning stereotype.

            1. Who gives a fuck about what Danny DeVito thinks?

              1. Louie de Palma on the other hand...

    2. The real outrage is that with gendered bathrooms, I know what I'm getting when I stick my dick in the gloryhole.

      Ungendered bathrooms will remove that confidence.

      1. Who gives a damn about *your* niche perversions, HM? Go with a more mainstream concern: how will this affect my -- that is to say, a hypothetical person's -- pastime of peeping in the women's locker room without the fear of having his view obstructed by a 60-year old man's wang?!

        The public deserves a fair and democratic debate, dammit!

      2. And besides, how the hell would a female glory hole even work?

        You're othering those without penises, HM!

        1. More of a bubble/turret type thing?

  59. Does this mean I have to stop pissing on the seat?

    1. Not at all -- just that you have to be sitting when you do it.

  60. I want my own private bathroom to entertain my own disturbing inner thoughts.

  61. Columbia taking care of business. Uruguay's harsh tactics had little effect. Colombia is showing they are indeed to be reckoned with. As well as Chile played - and they really did play excellent - I think Colombia may even be stronger.

  62. I can't imagine that there is a huge population of women who want men to listen to them shitting.

    1. And farting, burping and swearing.

  63. A lesbian friend of mine told me that there were many times she was reprimanded for going into the women's room. In a few cases, she actually went into the men's room then.

    There aren't really any logical reasons for segregated bathrooms. If anyone really thinks that perverts will be lining up to take advantage of unisex bathrooms they have a pretty cynical and pessimistic view of human nature. Besides, pretending that separate bathrooms make a difference in this matter is simply turning a blind eye to the fact that it still happens in segregated rooms. And finally, if the common thought is that segregated bathrooms are to protect women, isn't that a sexist view that we should be changing?

    1. "And finally, if the common thought is that segregated bathrooms are to protect women, isn't that a sexist view that we should be changing?"

      It's women that think that.

    2. It doesn't matter whether you think it's illogical or cynical or whatever. What matters is how businesses and other establishments perceive the desires of their patrons. I, for one, can't understand the restroom lounge trend, with sofas and soft lighting. But that's what some businesses think that people want. If popular opinion changes, restrooms will probably change.

  64. On principle, any argument and I mean ANY argument that predicates its validity on any pertinent part on the 'Well (insert foreign country here) does it...' defense is per se invalid. We have a different culture than every other country on Earth. (as does every other country) Basing cultural norms off of a place that has a different set of cultural norms is asinine.

    1. I thought that argument was bad too. I've been to developing countries and most people, especially women, didn't use public toilets.

      1. lap83|6.28.14 @ 10:15PM|#
        "I thought that argument was bad too. I've been to developing countries and most people, especially women, didn't use public toilets."

        I hope you know you just killed your own argument.

  65. There's no such thing as transgender. There is male and female. If you think you are something else there is something wrong with your brain and you need to seek professional help. Society should not have to jump through hoops erected by the mentally retarded.

    1. You're fucking ignorant.

      1. no, he isn't. Gender is biological and biologically programmed. Psychology (and medicine/biology) has already verified this.

        Even the trannies frequently take up the identity of THE OTHER SEX specifically. That's an inherent acceptence of the dichotomy.
        (whether that actually happens, where a genetic (fe)male is born in the brain as the other sex, is another issue, though I can tell you from first hand experience knowing this certain kid once, it does happen, but again, separate issue)

        People who say there's anything in between are weirdos and/or people who are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Like Rodney Dangerfield said, they're trying to double their chances of getting a date on Saturday night, lol

  66. The problem is not so much unisex bathrooms, as it is unisex shower/locker rooms in school, as well as sports teams and slumber parties.

  67. "Segregating" children from the industrial workforce is an idea from about the same era -- is it a bad idea because of its relatively short life compared to the span of history?

  68. In my country, public toilets in restaurants are often a single toilet and sink in a small room with a door that can be locked from the inside. Both genders are welcome to use it. This works well for parents with young children. The USA should legalise this.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.