4 ms·

Ok, so let me try this again: "who gives a fuck what's in the pants of the person in the next stall?" The person in the next stall can be man, woman or whoever

Ok, so let me try this again: "who gives a fuck what's in the pants of the person in the next stall?" The person in the next stall can be man, woman or whoever. But it actually does not matter who is in the next stall. What matters is who was before you in the stall or who wants to (forcefully) get along with you into the stall. If unisex toilets would increase the risks for people with woman physiology then I would be wary about forcing them into unisex toilets. The question of the feelings of the transgender people would be a secondary mater in this case. Now if there would be no risks then I am all for the unisex toilets as combined floor area would make them more practical.

ceejayoz 11y ago
> What matters is who was before you in the stall or who wants to (forcefully) get along with you into the stall. This is already a crime, and one the new anti-trans laws do nothing to combat (unless you intend to require a birth certificate or a pat-down to enter the bathroom). > If unisex toilets would increase the risks for people with woman physiology then I would be wary about forcing them into unisex toilets. Then demonstrate that they increase the risks. As I noted, there appears to be a larger risk of lewdness in bathrooms from Republican Congressmen than transgender individuals. There's certainly no epidemic of transgender folks assaulting people in bathrooms. If anything, transgender folks are generally the ones at risk of assault.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  All right, just to get things straight. First of, I am not a US resident nor a citizen. Therefore I really do not care about the remarks about Republican Congressmen. Well, mostly. Second, in my comment I mostly focused on the group who are physiologically women and also address themselves as women, i.e. women. If this was not clear enough, I am sorry. I did also not mean or write that there is in my opinion an increased risk from transgender people in the case of unisex toilets or that it would increase the risk for the transgender people. I hoped that the meaning was clear enough, I am sorry again. I am also not arguing against the opinions voiced here like "transgender folks are generally the ones at risk of assault". I am not physician and I do not have any court statistics handy, but my hypothesis was that a) hygiene in the men occupied toilets in general might be worse than in women only occupied toilets and sharing a public toilet with men might raise the risk of infections for women (it is a less problem for men because they mostly use urinal in the public toilets, if this was not clear enough), b) women may be at higher risk to be sexually assaulted in the toilets shared with men (and please note, I know that this is already a crime).

ceejayoz 11y ago

> What matters is who was before you in the stall or who wants to (forcefully) get along with you into the stall. This is already a crime, and one the new anti-trans laws do nothing to combat (unless you intend to require a birth certificate or a pat-down to enter the bathroom). > If unisex toilets would increase the risks for people with woman physiology then I would be wary about forcing them into unisex toilets. Then demonstrate that they increase the risks. As I noted, there appears to be a larger risk of lewdness in bathrooms from Republican Congressmen than transgender individuals. There's certainly no epidemic of transgender folks assaulting people in bathrooms. If anything, transgender folks are generally the ones at risk of assault.

eveningcoffee 11y ago
All right, just to get things straight. First of, I am not a US resident nor a citizen. Therefore I really do not care about the remarks about Republican Congressmen. Well, mostly. Second, in my comment I mostly focused on the group who are physiologically women and also address themselves as women, i.e. women. If this was not clear enough, I am sorry. I did also not mean or write that there is in my opinion an increased risk from transgender people in the case of unisex toilets or that it would increase the risk for the transgender people. I hoped that the meaning was clear enough, I am sorry again. I am also not arguing against the opinions voiced here like "transgender folks are generally the ones at risk of assault". I am not physician and I do not have any court statistics handy, but my hypothesis was that a) hygiene in the men occupied toilets in general might be worse than in women only occupied toilets and sharing a public toilet with men might raise the risk of infections for women (it is a less problem for men because they mostly use urinal in the public toilets, if this was not clear enough), b) women may be at higher risk to be sexually assaulted in the toilets shared with men (and please note, I know that this is already a crime).