9 ms·

Great read. However, he lost me at > Googley to stand up for diversity and inclusion, such as protesting against binary gendering on toilets Is it Google's b

• madeofpalk 10y ago
  Have you never been in a place with unisex toilets? In Australia, many offices, pubs and clubs have 'unisex toilets' which are basically just a whole bunch of small individual stalls with toilets + basin. Most of the time it isn't necessarily about being progressive, just cost saving and practicality.
  • ta34534445 10y ago
    I am in Australia, and have never come across "unisex toilets". Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, but I think you suggest a room of stall that can be used by all genders. I think by law however, there needs to be an "accessible" bathroom. This will be a single room which would likely fulfil the role.
• CydeWeys 10y ago
  It's a good deal more than 0.6% at Google, fyi. And the toilets in question aren't stall toilets, they're room toilets, like you'd see in a smaller restaurant.
  • edblarney 10y ago
    I doubt that strongly. In fact - it's considerably less than 0.6% in real life. The manner in which they calculate 'non gender binary' is really, really soft - i.e. 'if don't feel entirely male or female' you can often be included in that group. Hell, I'm a pretty straight white dude, but I don't feel 'fully male' 100% of the time! Moreover - most trans people are actually still 'binary' - they still identify as one or the other. I'm inclined to agree that Google has more of share of people who are not binary, but in reality, the number is really, really small. Much smaller than 0.6%.
• jacquesgt 10y ago
  Yes, the treatment of their employees in the workplace is very much Google's business. Accomodating LGBT employees is not only the right thing to do, it's also supported by many of the binary/cisgender/straight/non-queer/what have you employees at workplaces like Google.
• amputect 10y ago
  Yes, it is, but I think the implementation matters. In my building on the Google Kirkland campus, we have men's and women's bathrooms in a few different places, and also one place where there's 5 single-occupancy unisex bathrooms and one mother's room. It's great! It doesn't take any space away from the other bathrooms, and it accommodates people who are uncomfortable in the cisgender multi-person bathrooms for whatever reason (maybe they're somewhere in the QUILTBAG or maybe there's totally unrelated physical or psychological reasons they prefer single-occupancy restrooms). My understanding is that we're not trying to strike down all the barriers and make all toilets unisex, but there definitely are people who are working to make sure that every building has at least one of those unisex single-occupancy bathrooms, for people who need it. It doesn't cost Googlers anything except at most a couple of conference rooms.
  • chmln 10y ago
    Honestly, its largely a non-issue. Presenting people with choice and accommodating e.g. mothers is common sense. It is the fact of protesting such matters at work that threw me off in the first place. Opinions shouldn't be crammed down people's throats.
    • rincebrain 10y ago
      If the protest was about the lack of such choice, at the time, then this is still compatible with what you're suggesting is common sense.
  • dingaling 10y ago
    > and one mother's room. As a primary-carer father raising a toddler I don't like that terminology. I'd prefer that they'd just call it a Lactating Room rather than trying to be coy and seemingly indicating a preference for one parent.
    • gaius 10y ago
      If you are a lactating male then you are in a very small minority. Why not just "baby care room"?
• bubersson 10y ago
  In SF office, the Unisex toilets are nicer and more spacious.
• onion2k 10y ago
  Why cater to 0.6% of the population, at the expense of convenience for the 99.4%? Do all those 99.4% of people consider it an "expense"? A lot of people are happy to make a small sacrifice if it greatly benefits other people.
  • thegenius2000 10y ago
    Very fair point, but what about the fraction of people who not only consider it an expense, but an affront to moral dignity? For example, Politico did a poll which showed that 46% of Americans believe that everyone should use the bathroom of their birth. Should their comforts be sacrificed for the sake of 0.6% of the population?
    • rincebrain 10y ago
      "Believed that they should" is not necessarily the same as "affronted if they don't". There are, for example, a number of people who would not get an abortion, but believe in the right of others to doso.
      • Chris2048 10y ago
        But does it matter in that context? Does/should a belief be weighted higher if it causes "offense" - this would mean the easily offended would have their beliefs weighed higher, and thus people would be encouraged to be so.
        • rincebrain 10y ago
          I don't think a belief should be necessarily weighted higher because it causes offense (or not), no. I was trying to indicate the difference between "I would never" and "no one should ever" - the former being a belief that attempts to say nothing about what other people should or should not do, where the latter certainly says something about what everyone should do.
          • 10y ago
• anongoogle3432 10y ago
  Google is extremely politically correct. I'm a free speech advocate and someone opposed to identity politics and the privilege narrative. I don't feel comfortable talking about my views at Google, but my coworkers who feel otherwise talk about their views constantly.
• tedks 10y ago
  >but having to share the bathroom with females The fact this comment is not gray having such overt misogyny speaks poorly of HN as a tech community. This is what keeps women out of tech. Mods, please delete this.
  • Chris2048 10y ago
    Explain you point of view rather than calling for censorship. No, its not obvious.
• dancek 10y ago
  In a previous job we had a small office with just 4 toilets. About 10% of employees were female. There had originally been 2/2 male/female toilets but that was changed to 2 male, 1 female, and 1 unisex toilet. That worked well in practice. So I agree that unisex toilets can be a good idea, but it's a different matter to protest against binary gendering on toilets. I wouldn't like to work for a company that partakes in politics.
• deanCommie 10y ago
  What exactly is so awkward about sharing a bathroom with females?
  • gaius 10y ago
    It's like no-one saw Ally McBeal in the 90s.
• Chris2048 10y ago
  I'm a little disturbed that "Googli[ness]" involves both reasonable, sociable behavior and attitudes, but also leftist principles such as the above, as it might then serve to conflate the two.
• warmblood 10y ago
  I would ask you why is this singled out of an article that covers a large range of ideas. Your mask is now off.