• Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

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

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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.

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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).

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.