University Of Toronto Gender-Neutral Bathrooms Reduced After Voyeurism Reports

http://mic.com/articles/114066/stat...ple-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.IyTJ3G2rO

come back when you're at more than zero.

oh wait, why the experiment in the first place?

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...d-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf

oh no civilization is going to fall apart trying to prevent assaults and denial of service for one group at the cost of zero incidents for the majority

 

As I've pointed out before my school, UC Berkely had mixed gender bathrooms in the dorms 20 years ago. While there were all sorts of sophmoric antics (literally) it never seemed to be a huge problems. At Cal there were also gender segregated floors and also gender segregated dorms and from what I saw there were more antics and bad behavior in the all male bathrooms than in the mixed gender bathrooms.

 

If they make the partition go up to the ceiling, doesn't that solve the problem?

 

because nobody is harassing anybody for being non-trans. sexually. violently. etc.

and people are assaulting people for being trans.

thanks to religious freedom bathrooms.

thus the inane position of "oh my god guys WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE" is revealed when you look at the actual facts instead of delusion and factless illusion.

(and sure, thanks for conflating denial of service, and verbal harassment with violence)

 

0.3% of the population in the USA is transgender.

Clearly we must not worry about the concerns of the 99.7% of the population and make whole sale changes to effect 100% of the population.

 

what concerns?

what incidents drive those concerns?

I'm sorry, but Westboro Baptist Church members are 0.00001% of the population, it doesn't mean I should have free reign to deny them bathroom service and physically assault them within. sorry if fundamental rights and facts get in the way of your irrational animus.

 

the problem isn't gender-neutral bathrooms

the problem is mandating them

 

or in North Carolina's case, mandating that they can't exist (lol)

 

Mandating? So if someone wants to use whichever restroom, you'd support that person doing so without fear of arrest or physical assault?

 

No one was denying the transgender community the right to use the restroom. There were no signs that excluded them, there were no laws that excluded them. They had the same access as everyone else.

How many transgender people have been physically assaulted in the restroom, over how many years? What size is the total population of the USA? How many non-transgender people have been assaulted in the restroom?

 

no

I'd support an establishment deciding what type of bathrooms they want to have

 

so you'd be against North Carolina's new HB2 law?

 

That has already been tried in the past.

 

Tell that to the 50% of the transgender community that says they were denied service.

Do the math yourself: let's say 10% of 0.3% * the population of the United States is about 111,000 trans people assaulted for being trans. ok maybe discount for a factor of 30% because all of those may have been Nookian vigilante justice after Trans people were being icky. so, 30,000?

And 0 non-trans people assaulted by trans people trying not to get assaulted.

and that's just the raw baseline of physical assault and not the 70% of other issues.

oh s**t, when you put it that way, really the only reason why "not to cater" is because Trans people are icky. If you can ban a bathroom arrangement over 0 incidents what can you do with 30,000?

This is like that voter fraud s**t all over again. Republicans using ill-cast aspersions and stereotypes to mask a trend they hint at that doesn't exist in order to impugn on fundamental rights (like not being denied service at a bathroom, and not being assaulted within). Glad you've fallen for the bait, Nook.

 

You have to consider how things can be abused. Very naive of the University of Toronto to think this would work.

 

What was the sample size of the study?

What percent of the study were physically assaulted?

Didn't the study also include having someone "stare at them" or "asking them that they were in the wrong restroom"?

The only reason "not to cater" to trans people is because they are "icky"?

Sure, it wouldn't be because women want to use the restroom with women and men want to use restrooms with other men?..... It wouldn't be because a parent is concerned?

How would you feel if nudists decided they don't want to ever wear clothing in public?

I assume that you wouldn't have an issue with it....... What about those in a slave/master relationship..... should they be allowed to partake in submissive coaching and discipline in public? What about a submissive that happens to be an elementary school teacher. Should she be allowed to to be dominated during school hours or be open about the fact that she is property to her students?

 

I really don't get this...being a voyeur or sexual predator is not exclusive to being transgender, being male, or being female.

So if all you want to do is make it easier for Transgender people to be harassed then sure.

 

It provides them "cover" to enter the bathroom. Laws shouldn't be making these types of crime easier.