this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
320 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2509 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Transmasc students who use boys toilets still menstruate unless on some serious hormone therapy.

Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago

The reality of this is that it would end up like divisions in sports and other competitive activities and we'd have a women's restroom and a unisex restroom. Because some women want to avoid the opposite sex and society will broadly respect that because they are women.

If schools did switch to all unisex toilets, then we'd just be a complaint and a lawsuit away from official Title IX policy being that girls toilets are mandatory regardless of whether or not there are unisex toilets but boys toilets are not if unisex toilets are available and to do otherwise is sex discrimination because of some arbitrary excuse containing the word "historic" to explain why discrimination is not discrimination so long as it benefits girls.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Instead of stalls put proper walls and doors on the toilets like you have at home. Boom. Unisex toilets with no issues.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

This is seriously the way. Once you’ve been to a country that does this (Sweden in my case) and experienced it yourself, the “normal” way (USA in my case) only looks more stupid than it did before.

But I’m sure it would cost more than zero additional dollars to do, so it would get rejected while still on the drawing board. Some human comfort, dignity, and privacy is NOT going to boost our earnings this quarter.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It's fantastic.

Work has a selection of "unisex" bathrooms and I use them all the time, much preferred over the mens room.

So I'm personally benefitting from this brand of "wokeness", even if I'm not trans.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago

In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It’s fantastic.

That dramatically reduces capacity though. Which is fine if you don't need that capacity, and/or aren't trying to retrofit existing facilities without spending a fortune.

There's a pizza place nearish me that has two single occupancy unisex restrooms, for example. But before they moved to unisex they had two single occupancy gendered restrooms, so they were just changing signage rather than having to do any kind of construction to make it happen. As opposed to say a local theater that has 6 toilets, 4 urinals and 4 sinks in one restroom and not remotely enough space to have 6 separate rooms with a toilet and sink each in the same space - but they expected to need higher throughput in a smaller footprint (less so now, but they were pretty busy pre-COVID).

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago

Other than capacity, space, and expense retrofitting issues. Single occupancy toilets take up more room which means being able to handle less people in the same space and space is not an unlimited resource in most building designs. Especially if you are talking about doing it to an existing building.

My comment about Title IX (a law that says that any educational program receiving federal funding may not discriminate with respect to sex) is specifically in reference to them taking exactly that stance with sports - if a girl wants to play a sport that has a boys team but not a girls then a school is required to let her try out for the boys team (and cannot consider her sex and gender as far as whether she makes the team) under Title IX policy, but if a boy wants to play a sport that has a girls team but not a boys team, he's SOL under current Title IX policy. To do otherwise is sex discrimination. Equity.