Changing stations, fair point, but to the tampons question, I think it is fair to cast the same question as "Why are there no urinals in the women's restroom?"

Changing stations, fair point, but to the tampons question, I think it is fair to cast the same question as "Why are there no urinals in the women's restroom?" Could there be some people who would choose to use the women's restroom and still have the ability to use a urinal? I would say yes. Would the vast majority of people benefit who use that room? I would say no. It appears to me to be simple an economical thought which drives these decisions, not some sort of vicious gender discrimination. I think its perfectly reasonable to deride those looking to maintain the status quo for no reason, but this seems to me an overblown problem on both sides of the argument.