Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[Wallenburg]

Its probably for the best that transexuals go to the restroom for their gender despite their sex. It'll save society a LOT of discrimination, but that's just my opinion.

So why are you in support of the NC law?

[Des-Bal]

Given that what is considered is an individuals gender identity, the individual who has a female gender identity, under federal regulations, has an expressed right and legal protection to use that facility, and the individual who does not does not. Its not any different, in that case, from a woman who looks like a man using the women's room, and there have been plenty of women who look like that, and instances where that has caused a ruckus. The difference is you're comparing two unlike things. Physical appearance is not a necessary qualifier, and using it as a factor has caused even some women to face harassment and discrimination whilst using the restroom for not looking 'feminine enough', or 'looking like a boy'. It doesn't change the fact that they're women, and thus are using the appropriate facilities.

When you're trying to make a point it's usually not considered good forum to use drawn out hypothetical. In other words, what's your point?

So your only justification is that as a matter of law "this is the room for persons who identify as women" and "this is not the room for persons who identify as men." That being the case, if federal legislation was passed that defined those facilities as being divided based on biological sex and not gender you would be 100% on board?

I will also note that you just acknowledged women or girls have been ejected from bathrooms for looking too masculine. Allowing transgender women to use the women's room would not prevent them being mistaken for men and as in the case of Alan what the person looks like should not matter.

My point is that saying that transgender people should be permitted to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with should also mean saying "anybody use any bathroom" unless your logic is "just because."

[Noraika]

Its probably for the best that transexuals go to the restroom for their gender despite their sex. It'll save society a LOT of discrimination, but that's just my opinion.

Too easy and makes too much sense for radical social experimenters.

I actually agree with Gurori, and am very glad you do as well. An individuals gender is the most important factor. More important than their physical sex, so transgender individuals should have the ability to access the accommodations and facilities befitting their gender identity. This is definitely better than reinforcing discrimination and social stigma, by radical conservative social experimenters, who think that its better to try and check everyone's genitals at the door, and creating hysteria about an issue which has not been shown to be a credible, or even existent, problem.

Approaching the issue like a reasonable and developed, egalitarian society, by protecting the ability and rights of transgender individuals, and working to reduce and eliminate discrimination and stigma, instead of reinforcing it, is certainly the way to go.
I'm glad we agree on this.

[Gurori]

Its probably for the best that transexuals go to the restroom for their gender despite their sex. It'll save society a LOT of discrimination, but that's just my opinion.

So why are you in support of the NC law?

I'm not. I'm saying that it would save society a fuck-ton of discrimination but making it a law is fucking insanity!

[Valystria]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/some-embrace-obama-administration%e2%80%99s-transgender-directive-others-vow-to-fight/ar-BBt1gSS?ocid=spartandhp

So, President Obama is willing to throw disadvantaged and disabled kids under “under the bus”, by cutting off Federal education dollars, for the sake of anti-sexual-segregation of school restrooms.

No, it's the sexists willing to throw disadvantaged and disabled children under the bus when that's what it takes to hold onto sexually segregated bathrooms.

Really, if these social conservatives cared about disabled children they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice them upon the alter of sexually segregated bathrooms. If these social conservatives cared about disadvantaged children, they wouldn't be clinging on to a desperate determination to ensure transgender students remain disadvantaged. And don't forget, some disabled students happen to be transgender. OoooOoo. Yeah, see, you don't care about students being disabled or disadvantaged, so don't pretend you do.

A right to privacy.

You already have a basic right to privacy and will continue to. The bathroom stalls aren't going away. Someone simply using a bathroom doesn't constitute harassment or a violation of privacy. If you're wanting every public bathroom to be your personal safe space, public bathrooms aren't the place for you to be at.

[MightyQuinn]

Yes, the Obama Administration is considering cutting funding to disadvantaged and disabled children if public school and university have restrooms that are for people who actually happen to be women or men.

Title IX is the excuse that they are using. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex, but it has no language recognizing transgender-transsexual persons and it predates any judicial ruling that recognizes the mental perception of sexual identity.

The 2nd Amendment has no language recognizing machine guns, and it predates assault rifles by over a century. Even still, people apply it. Times change, and while I shan't make a complete defense of either side at the moment, I will state that the reason the ability to draft amendments, as well as the power of Judicial Review held by the Supreme Court, exists is specifically because older rulings and documents can be used for later proceedings, and the guidelines are not entirely rigid. Society is a fluid thing, constantly shifting and changing, and so it should be no surprise that people will point to a precedent to support their own arguments.

I recognize your decision to carefully weigh the arguments and applaud it.

That said, the Second Amendment doesn't mention guns, it mentions "arms". Judicial review is not in the Constitution and was a power grab by the Supreme Court. It worked in Jefferson's favor so he allowed the precedent to be set.

[Wallenburg]

So why are you in support of the NC law?

I'm not. I'm saying that it would save society a fuck-ton of discrimination but making it a law is fucking insanity!

Ah, I see. I was mistaken.

[Des-Bal]

Excellent question. I concurr- how are we able to moderate who is and isn't transexual, if we don't judge them by their appearance? Doesn't that open the door to potential assault? Because frankly, anybody can say that they're transexual and then walk into a restroom. I mean, if it's that easy... I dunno. I currently only agree with the NC law in an idealistic sense, as the law itself is completely unenforcable. However, the summary of my opinion remains- if your sex (not gender, as the two are apparently different) is male or female, it'd be a good idea to stick to those restrooms. Otherwise, the chance for abuse, and subsequent villanisation of transgender individuals (who are a minority of a minority, mind you) as pedophiles and perverts, which I don't think anybody wants. Perhaps that's an overly negative view on the subject, but I am a pessimist and I see that result as likely. And before anybody starts yelling "bigot", I have worked and continue to work with transexuals as part of my job, and they are all very nice people. Different, yes, but still very nice. I just don't see this as a good step in the correct direction.

See the conclusion I take is that segregated bathrooms are totally unjustifiable, not that we should discriminate against transgender people.

If the issues is safety, I haven't seen any stats suggesting segregated bathrooms are safer and logic suggests they would not be just because of the higher likelihood of people being caught alone. If the issue is people's comfort then there is no reason to kick out Bob but not to kick out Alan. The are no logical reasons that Bob should go and Alan should stay.

[Wallenburg]

The poll is very misleading. It asserts that one must pick either disabled children or transgender children, and that we cannot want to support both at the same time. We most certainly can.

[Geilinor]

Wait... They're actually considering cutting funding to helping disabled children in their education over the shitter?

What... The fuck...

No, they're not.

[MightyQuinn]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/some-embrace-obama-administration%e2%80%99s-transgender-directive-others-vow-to-fight/ar-BBt1gSS?ocid=spartandhp

So, President Obama is willing to throw disadvantaged and disabled kids under “under the bus”, by cutting off Federal education dollars, for the sake of anti-sexual-segregation of school restrooms.

No, it's the sexists willing to throw disadvantaged and disabled children under the bus when that's what it takes to hold onto sexually segregated bathrooms.

Really, if these social conservatives cared about disabled children they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice them upon the alter of sexually segregated bathrooms. If these social conservatives cared about disadvantaged children, they wouldn't be clinging on to a desperate determination to ensure transgender students remain disadvantaged. And don't forget, some disabled students happen to be transgender. OoooOoo. Yeah, see, you don't care about students being disabled or disadvantaged, so don't pretend you do.

A right to privacy.

You already have a basic right to privacy and will continue to. The bathroom stalls aren't going away. Someone simply using a bathroom doesn't constitute harassment or a violation of privacy. If you're wanting every public bathroom to be your personal safe space, public bathrooms aren't the place for you to be at.

Of course we care about disadvantaged and disabled children. We want to give them a firm basis in reality. Not a world where black is white so they can be "run over in the next zebra crossing." Thank you Douglas Adams.

We are not the ones who are engaged in blackmail/extortion against the States.

It's more cost effective to have bathrooms in segregated groups.

[Jolet]

With the passage of the new laws, anyone can say they are transgender and are being forced to enter a bathroom not corresponding to their gender. This law does nothing to solve that very fictional problem.

Not to mention the use of the law, in general, ignores the very real issue of violence and harassment of transgender individuals, and the reinforcement of stigma this law feeds by supporting the idea that allowing transgender individuals and allowing them access to the facilities and accommodations of their gender identity is compromising to bathroom safety, despite the experiences of numerous states, local authorities, and countries which have protected this ability for transgender people, in some cases for over a decade, saying and showing otherwise.

Wallenburg, I'm having trouble following you on that. What exactly do you mean by "are being forced to enter a bathroom not corresponding to their gender"? If someone looking to abuse this freedom to walk into whatever bathroom they feel like identifies themselves as transgender soley for illicit purposes, they're not being forced, they are making a choice.

Oh wait. Waaaait, I think I understand now. Alright, gonna leave what I wrote there, as the point stands. However, I do agree, it's an iffy topic. I just don't think opening everything up at the same time is a good idea, either.

Nora, I understand where you are coming from, and I agree, the transgender populace (which is a pretty small number of people) has been routinely crapped on by society at large. That said, I'm not sure I agree with you on the idea that this isn't abused at all. In terms of countries, I would say that the United States' social structure differs greatly from other countries, which means that what works over there might not work here. In terms of states, I refer to the previous point, that not every state is exactly like the other one. I simply do not trust people enough to believe that opening up the bathrooms to people of both sexes is a viable solution.

That said, I would say that there are other ways to accomodate a transgendered person's needs without compromising "bathroom safety". Maybe the mandatory installment of a unisex bathroom would be wise, perhaps for every building. Expensive, yes, but if it's that big of a deal then people should probably just get over it. I just question changing the policy of the majority in favor of a tiny minority, demographically speaking.

[Galloism]

No, it's the sexists willing to throw disadvantaged and disabled children under the bus when that's what it takes to hold onto sexually segregated bathrooms.

Really, if these social conservatives cared about disabled children they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice them upon the alter of sexually segregated bathrooms. If these social conservatives cared about disadvantaged children, they wouldn't be clinging on to a desperate determination to ensure transgender students remain disadvantaged. And don't forget, some disabled students happen to be transgender. OoooOoo. Yeah, see, you don't care about students being disabled or disadvantaged, so don't pretend you do.


You already have a basic right to privacy and will continue to. The bathroom stalls aren't going away. Someone simply using a bathroom doesn't constitute harassment or a violation of privacy. If you're wanting every public bathroom to be your personal safe space, public bathrooms aren't the place for you to be at.

Of course we care about disadvantaged and disabled children. We want to give them a firm basis in reality. Not a world where black is white so they can be "run over in the next zebra crossing." Thank you Douglas Adams.

We are not the ones who are engaged in blackmail/extortion against the States.

It's more cost effective to have bathrooms in segregated groups.

So, what happens in 20 years? If states aren't complying to laws protecting beastiality, they can all go straight to hell?

I mean, think about it this way. Let's suppose I'm an eccentric billionaire, and I'll pay you $100 per day to wear a fruit basket on your head. You do so for many years, and I pay you $100 every day.

One day, you decide you're no longer going to wear a fruit basket on your head. You don't want to anymore. Fruit baskets are evil.

I stop paying your $100 per day.

What's your source of complaint?

[Wallenburg]

Not to mention the use of the law, in general, ignores the very real issue of violence and harassment of transgender individuals, and the reinforcement of stigma this law feeds by supporting the idea that allowing transgender individuals and allowing them access to the facilities and accommodations of their gender identity is compromising to bathroom safety, despite the experiences of numerous states, local authorities, and countries which have protected this ability for transgender people, in some cases for over a decade, saying and showing otherwise.

Wallenburg, I'm having trouble following you on that. What exactly do you mean by "are being forced to enter a bathroom not corresponding to their gender"? If someone looking to abuse this freedom to walk into whatever bathroom they feel like identifies themselves as transgender soley for illicit purposes, they're not being forced, they are making a choice.

Oh wait. Waaaait, I think I understand now. Alright, gonna leave what I wrote there, as the point stands. However, I do agree, it's an iffy topic. I just don't think opening everything up at the same time is a good idea, either.

Your point doesn't stand. Under this law, people who are not transgender can claim to be transgender, and then go into a bathroom that doesn't actually correspond to their gender. It isn't likely at all, but it's just as likely as cisgender people pretending to be transgender in a state with liberal and tolerant bathroom laws. So tell me, what the hell does this law achieve?

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

The 2nd Amendment has no language recognizing machine guns, and it predates assault rifles by over a century. Even still, people apply it. Times change, and while I shan't make a complete defense of either side at the moment, I will state that the reason the ability to draft amendments, as well as the power of Judicial Review held by the Supreme Court, exists is specifically because older rulings and documents can be used for later proceedings, and the guidelines are not entirely rigid. Society is a fluid thing, constantly shifting and changing, and so it should be no surprise that people will point to a precedent to support their own arguments.

I recognize your decision to carefully weigh the arguments and applaud it.

That said, the Second Amendment doesn't mention guns, it mentions "arms". Judicial review is not in the Constitution and was a power grab by the Supreme Court. It worked in Jefferson's favor so he allowed the precedent to be set.

I am aware of both of these things. The simple matter is that precedent has been used, time and time again, across the 19th and 20th centuries. That is, decisions enacted in the 18th century, and the earliest years of the 19th century, had been pointed to and repeatedly amended with such ferocity that, nearly one hundred years after the United States had declared that all men were created equal, this liberty was extended to minorities in a legal sense. When this same wording was used to create a "Separate, but equal" environment under the Jim Crow laws, it was amended again after nearly another century to extend even further. It had even gone so far that "men" became used in the sense of "mankind", that is humanity, rather than those possessing male genitalia.

The precedent is there to allow equality to transgender individuals, if those defending are willing to utilize it. While I may not have full agreement of the method by which this is enforced, one could present the argument that "the ends justify the means", which is debated to say the least. Even if my specific examples (that is, "arms" and context-sensitive situations) are no entirely solid, I do believe my point carries.

That said, I suppose I shall present my viewpoint: Transgender individuals have a right to their preference. People almost exclusively point to the idealistic situation of a man falsifying his gender preference to sneak into women's restrooms. This is all lacking the recognition of the simple fact that stalls are in place in most public restrooms, regardless of gender, specifically to prevent such things. Homosexuals would be, theoretically, just as dangerous, and yet nobody argues that a homosexual man should not use the men's restroom. Furthermore, if anyone has malicious intent, a sign on the door is hardly going to stop them.

Keeping this in mind, there are better ways to enforce this rule than to cut funding. This is especially clear given the context of the states refusing it, which are typically dominated by the Republican party, which holds a precedent in cutting education funding anyways. In my home state, this has been taken to an extreme, whereby education funding has been cut illegal amounts in an absurdly short timespan. Not only does this legislation further harm the schools involved when those that would be affected, public schools, have no real control over the issue, but the party's disregard for education funding means that it is likewise not very effective. If it harms those who do not have control, and means nothing to those who do, then a change in policy should be considered.

[Wallenburg]

Of course we care about disadvantaged and disabled children. We want to give them a firm basis in reality. Not a world where black is white so they can be "run over in the next zebra crossing." Thank you Douglas Adams.

We are not the ones who are engaged in blackmail/extortion against the States.

It's more cost effective to have bathrooms in segregated groups.

It is a far cry away from extortion or blackmail. The states have no right to federal money. They have to earn it.

And no, it isn't cost effective at all to have segregated bathrooms.

[Jolet]

Wallenburg, I'm having trouble following you on that. What exactly do you mean by "are being forced to enter a bathroom not corresponding to their gender"? If someone looking to abuse this freedom to walk into whatever bathroom they feel like identifies themselves as transgender soley for illicit purposes, they're not being forced, they are making a choice.

Oh wait. Waaaait, I think I understand now. Alright, gonna leave what I wrote there, as the point stands. However, I do agree, it's an iffy topic. I just don't think opening everything up at the same time is a good idea, either.

Your point doesn't stand. Under this law, people who are not transgender can claim to be transgender, and then go into a bathroom that doesn't actually correspond to their gender. It isn't likely at all, but it's just as likely as cisgender people pretending to be transgender in a state with liberal and tolerant bathroom laws. So tell me, what the hell does this law achieve?

You are making the assumption that that someone who is not transgender and then abusing this law to their advantage is doing this without any ill intent. I am not. I don't need to spell that out, you can puzzle out what I'm implying on your own like the intelligent person that you are. What the law does is- theoretically, anyway- prevent in their minds the potential for abuse and the fallout from it.

Your explanation of the law has successfully confused me. From what I understand, the hue and cry about this law is that it prevents people of transgender identity from going into the bathroom of which they identify with. Now you're telling me that those who pretend to be transgender can do exactly that and it's fine under the law, even though those who are transgendering aren't allowed to, even though it's exactly the same behavior under the exact same reason. What exactly is going on here? What am I missing in this whole debate that would solve this apparent contradiction?

[Des-Bal]

You are making the assumption that that someone who is not transgender and then abusing this law to their advantage is doing this without any ill intent. I am not. I don't need to spell that out, you can puzzle out what I'm implying on your own like the intelligent person that you are. What the law does is- theoretically, anyway- prevent in their minds the potential for abuse and the fallout from it.

Your explanation of the law has successfully confused me. From what I understand, the hue and cry about this law is that it prevents people of transgender identity from going into the bathroom of which they identify with. Now you're telling me that those who pretend to be transgender can do exactly that and it's fine under the law, even though those who are transgendering aren't allowed to, even though it's exactly the same behavior under the exact same reason. What exactly is going on here? What am I missing in this whole debate that would solve this apparent contradiction?

State your concerns or don't.

[Wallenburg]

Your point doesn't stand. Under this law, people who are not transgender can claim to be transgender, and then go into a bathroom that doesn't actually correspond to their gender. It isn't likely at all, but it's just as likely as cisgender people pretending to be transgender in a state with liberal and tolerant bathroom laws. So tell me, what the hell does this law achieve?

You are making the assumption that that someone who is not transgender and then abusing this law to their advantage is doing this without any ill intent.

No, I'm not.

I am not. I don't need to spell that out, you can puzzle out what I'm implying on your own like the intelligent person that you are. What the law does is- theoretically, anyway- prevent in their minds the potential for abuse and the fallout from it.

Exactly how does a law prevent the potential for people to abuse it?

Your explanation of the law has successfully confused me. From what I understand, the hue and cry about this law is that it prevents people of transgender identity from going into the bathroom of which they identify with. Now you're telling me that those who pretend to be transgender can do exactly that and it's fine under the law, even though those who are transgendering aren't allowed to, even though it's exactly the same behavior under the exact same reason. What exactly is going on here? What am I missing in this whole debate that would solve this apparent contradiction?

No, I'm saying that, theoretically, a cisgender individual could abuse this new law in order to gain access to bathrooms of the gender opposite to theirs.

[Noraika]

Your point doesn't stand. Under this law, people who are not transgender can claim to be transgender, and then go into a bathroom that doesn't actually correspond to their gender. It isn't likely at all, but it's just as likely as cisgender people pretending to be transgender in a state with liberal and tolerant bathroom laws. So tell me, what the hell does this law achieve?

You are making the assumption that that someone who is not transgender and then abusing this law to their advantage is doing this without any ill intent. I am not. I don't need to spell that out, you can puzzle out what I'm implying on your own like the intelligent person that you are. What the law does is- theoretically, anyway- prevent in their minds the potential for abuse and the fallout from it.

Your explanation of the law has successfully confused me. From what I understand, the hue and cry about this law is that it prevents people of transgender identity from going into the bathroom of which they identify with. Now you're telling me that those who pretend to be transgender can do exactly that and it's fine under the law, even though those who are transgendering aren't allowed to, even though it's exactly the same behavior under the exact same reason. What exactly is going on here? What am I missing in this whole debate that would solve this apparent contradiction?

Yes. Let's say a cis-male wants to go into a restroom for nefarious reasons. Under the law, a transgender man (female-to-male) is still required to use the women's restroom. Using this, the cis-male pervert can simply appeal to the law by saying they are a transgender man, and are acting in compliance with the law by using the women's restroom.

This isn't even going into the fact that there's no indication that show's that this law's premise is even warranted or anything other than pure fiction, but I digress.

[Jolet]

You are making the assumption that that someone who is not transgender and then abusing this law to their advantage is doing this without any ill intent. I am not. I don't need to spell that out, you can puzzle out what I'm implying on your own like the intelligent person that you are. What the law does is- theoretically, anyway- prevent in their minds the potential for abuse and the fallout from it.

Your explanation of the law has successfully confused me. From what I understand, the hue and cry about this law is that it prevents people of transgender identity from going into the bathroom of which they identify with. Now you're telling me that those who pretend to be transgender can do exactly that and it's fine under the law, even though those who are transgendering aren't allowed to, even though it's exactly the same behavior under the exact same reason. What exactly is going on here? What am I missing in this whole debate that would solve this apparent contradiction?

State your concerns or don't.

Very well.

Suppose a man- heck, let's call him a sex offender, just to illustrate my point- walks into a supermarket and goes to enter the women's restroom. Nobody questions it since he can go into whatever bathroom he identifies as and it's not our position to judge. While inside he sees a ten year old girl, and he ends up molesting the girl due to his pedophilic addiction. In my viewpoint, that is what the law is trying to prevent. As unlikely as this might be- which honestly, probably isn't even all that unlikely if this became the norm- the fact is that this sort of stuff would happen, and probably with disturbing frequency. That is my concern- if we do not question, how do we prevent these things from happening? We don't. As unfortunate as the stigma is, it exists for a reason- previous to this, men did not go in women's bathrooms and vice versa. That was the moray of society up until this point. To throw that out the window in favor of a few hundred thousand people "just because" is poorly thought-out. To every choice there is consequence- including altering the status quo. We know the problems with the current way of doing things- what about throwing that out for this new model? What are the problems there? Has anybody really stopped and considered the possible repercussions from this? I would say no.

[MightyQuinn]

Of course we care about disadvantaged and disabled children. We want to give them a firm basis in reality. Not a world where black is white so they can be "run over in the next zebra crossing." Thank you Douglas Adams.

We are not the ones who are engaged in blackmail/extortion against the States.

It's more cost effective to have bathrooms in segregated groups.

It is a far cry away from extortion or blackmail. The states have no right to federal money. They have to earn it.

And no, it isn't cost effective at all to have segregated bathrooms.

Well, let's suppose that you have a typical Men's bathroom and it contains a few typical urinal stalls and a few toilet stalls, all in one room.
Let's also suppose that you have a typical Women's bathroom and it contains individual toilet stalls.
Now, let's suppose that we are actually concerned with privacy and specifically women's privacy and freedom from fear that a man will overpower them in a restroom, the to have gender neutral bathrooms, each restroom will need to be a separate unit, which means more individual bathrooms which means more space for bathrooms and more walls.

[Des-Bal]

Very well.

Suppose a man- heck, let's call him a sex offender, just to illustrate my point- walks into a supermarket and goes to enter the women's restroom. Nobody questions it since he can go into whatever bathroom he identifies as and it's not our position to judge. While inside he sees a ten year old girl, and he ends up molesting the girl due to his pedophilic addiction. In my viewpoint, that is what the law is trying to prevent. As unlikely as this might be- which honestly, probably isn't even all that unlikely if this became the norm- the fact is that this sort of stuff would happen, and probably with disturbing frequency. That is my concern- if we do not question, how do we prevent these things from happening? We don't. As unfortunate as the stigma is, it exists for a reason- previous to this, men did not go in women's bathrooms and vice versa. That was the moray of society up until this point. To throw that out the window in favor of a few hundred thousand people "just because" is poorly thought-out. To every choice there is consequence- including altering the status quo. We know the problems with the current way of doing things- what about throwing that out for this new model? What are the problems there? Has anybody really stopped and considered the possible repercussions from this? I would say no.

So fear mongering based on assumptions about the likelihood of a narrow class of sexual abuse? Tell me, what happens if this particular sex offender happens to be interested in little boys? Why shouldn't we use mixed bathrooms? If that's the case then whoever is molesting whoever, it is now twice as likely that somebody able to render assistance is going to walk through the door.

[Galloism]

It is a far cry away from extortion or blackmail. The states have no right to federal money. They have to earn it.

And no, it isn't cost effective at all to have segregated bathrooms.

Well, let's suppose that you have a typical Men's bathroom and it contains a few typical urinal stalls and a few toilet stalls, all in one room.
Let's also suppose that you have a typical Women's bathroom and it contains individual toilet stalls.
Now, let's suppose that we are actually concerned with privacy and specifically women's privacy and freedom from fear that a man will overpower them in a restroom, the to have gender neutral bathrooms, each restroom will need to be a separate unit, which means more individual bathrooms which means more space for bathrooms and more walls.

Unless bathrooms were equipped with gender detecting force fields while I wasn't looking, cheap plastic signs continue to be ineffective against sexual predators.

[Gauthier]

Well, let's suppose that you have a typical Men's bathroom and it contains a few typical urinal stalls and a few toilet stalls, all in one room.
Let's also suppose that you have a typical Women's bathroom and it contains individual toilet stalls.
Now, let's suppose that we are actually concerned with privacy and specifically women's privacy and freedom from fear that a man will overpower them in a restroom, the to have gender neutral bathrooms, each restroom will need to be a separate unit, which means more individual bathrooms which means more space for bathrooms and more walls.

Unless bathrooms were equipped with gender detecting force fields while I wasn't looking, cheap plastic signs continue to be ineffective against sexual predators.

And again, if a sexual deviant exploited transgender restroom laws to sneak in and rape somebody you'd swear the whole right wing media would be howling about it for at least 2 weeks like the O.J. Simpson trial.