It’s a good setup. The problem it solves to me is the parent/kid problem:
Son is 8. Has to go pee. Mom can’t go with him. Too old to go in the ladies room.
She’s stuck pacing outside the men’s room, or bringing him into the ladies room. The women there don’t usually care, but he might be mortified.
==
Statistics change Society has changed. The definition of gender HAS changed.
You go to the bathroom to shit, piss and wash your hands. Why do you want to be a soldier in a toilet fighting to keep status quo over a toilet?
==
I understand the point you’re trying to make here, but fighting over a toilet is ridiculous.
===
Ppl are fighting to keep status quo over a toilet. So what if the legislation changed? It’s a toilet.
==
==
I’ve gone in places that just had a horse trough. Didn’t bother me. But some men are sensitive and want privacy. Also note:
It’s a brewry where they make beer. More men drink beer. More men will be pissing. So it’s logical in that situation.
===
True. I’m sure if we searched around, SOMEBODY has calculated the most efficient ratio of urinals to toilets in a given bathroom situation, based upon average speed of use and such.
==
I’m also a wildly pro-trans liberal. I think its a great solution for everybody. I notice there’s a common sink area where the camera is. There’s no logical reason for men and women to require separate sink areas, but I suppose they can have a row on either side or something for the shy ones.
===
Yup. Just get it over with. I had unisex bathrooms at my college 26 years ago. I thought it’d be commonplace by now.
===
Well, that’s the great thing about it being a unisex bathroom: There will ALWAYS be _someone_ voluntarily keeping an eye on things to make sure there’s no hanky panky.
===
I can image Church Ladies Bathroom Brigade on a mission to crusade every public bathroom to keep the riff-raff from riff-raffing.
===
They don’t. The design of the bathroom facilities dictates where you go. You still sit down to shit, men usually stand to piss. We stand at a sink and wash our hands.
You’re making it into a bigger issue than necessary.
If legislation has changed it’s changed. It’d be different if it was still in discussions.
===
That’d be true if they were private bathroom facilities.
But in the USA, bathroom facilities in stores are public facilities and subject to the state.
===
It’s public schools. It’s BEEN a social engineering experiment for the past 140 years or so.
===
Point is, the public school system is _precisely_ the place Fed + States do their social engineering testing. So, this is a new experiment. In the 80s, I dealt with the “I’m OK/You’re OK” experiment. Today’s kids are dealing with the “Grit” experiment. All experiments.
===
You want to generalize BEYOND the issue at hand to some other direction.
But what if we stick with the issue at hand and see what other benefits are possible? I find that far more productive.
==
A simple search for “Do I let my son in the men’s room”? shows an awful lot of issues about this among mothers.
They’re not 0.00something% of the population. What I like about the solution as shown in the OP is it solves that problem as well, which to me is a bigger issue.
It might be a strange path to get there, but it’s logical.
===
Well, if you’ll notice (probably because it was used as a rallying point for the Cruz campaign to fight against): it *is* serving a function now: Just look at the backlash.
===
And, if nobody had a problem, it would’ve been symbolic. A lot of laws are on the books “just in case”.
Anti-sodomy laws still exist on the books not because being gay is illegal, but they function as a way to increase charges against an offender during rape and molestation cases. So, serves a function.
==
The intention is symbolic. It would’ve quietly passed and nobody would’ve known about it had it not been an election year.
It would give a little extra suing power for a small group of people in very rare cases.
But, now it’s blown up into an issue because people made a big deal of it.
Now that people have made a big deal of it, now it’ll be serving various functions, usually as something for people to get all Social Justice “There’s Only Two Genders” about.
The SJW’s in this case is the right, not the left.
===
In short, the crybabies are not the liberal left in this case. No plumbing changes required if the right weren’t crying over the Obama directive.
I Just saw that 11 states were suing over it. What were they suing over? It’s ridiculous. It’s a non-issue.
==