Target's Transgender Bathroom Policy [Split from

[Angel_fire]

[MOD EDIT: Split this discussion from original thread, "Do you shop at WalMart?", here:]: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/do-you-shop-at-walmart/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't bother to read all the comments so I don't know if anyone else has mentioned Target.

I've boycotted Target since they announced a chain-wide policy inviting transgender customers to use the bathroom that matched their gender identity.  Ummm, no thank you.

I use Walmart Pharmacy because of its convenience and customer service.  It's on my way to the gym and rarely busy at the times/days I go there.   While waiting 20 minutes for the prescriptions, I walk the store for exercise, to people watch (marveling at what people have in their carts) and to search for clearance sale items though rarely buy from there. 

 Living near Aldis, Bj's Wholesale Club, The Christmas Tree Store, Food Lion, and Walgreen's allow me to bargain shop and search for reduced prices on everything. 

[arebelspy]

I've boycotted Target since they announced a chain-wide policy inviting transgender customers to use the bathroom that matched their gender identity.  Ummm, no thank you.

That gave me MORE reason to shop there.  Their inclusive, progressive attitude towards transgender people makes me happy.  Even if it's a calculated move, it's one which promotes more love and acceptance.  Good for Target!  Wish everyone was so enlightened.

[gggggg]

I've boycotted Target since they announced a chain-wide policy inviting transgender customers to use the bathroom that matched their gender identity.  Ummm, no thank you.

That gave me MORE reason to shop there.  Their inclusive, progressive attitude towards transgender people makes me happy.  Even if it's a calculated move, it's one which promotes more love and acceptance.  Good for Target!  Wish everyone was so enlightened.

This is getting off topic, but would you send your daughter into a restroom with a straight up guy with a wig on? I understand fully converted transgender folks using the restroom of their identity. The open policy pretty much opens it up for anyone to go into any restroom though.

[pbkmaine]

Women's restrooms have stalls, so there's privacy no matter what you look like. I am much more worried about the poor bulimic girls puking their guts out than I am some guy in a wig.

[Cranky]

I've boycotted Target since they announced a chain-wide policy inviting transgender customers to use the bathroom that matched their gender identity.  Ummm, no thank you.

That gave me MORE reason to shop there.  Their inclusive, progressive attitude towards transgender people makes me happy.  Even if it's a calculated move, it's one which promotes more love and acceptance.  Good for Target!  Wish everyone was so enlightened.

This is getting off topic, but would you send your daughter into a restroom with a straight up guy with a wig on? I understand fully converted transgender folks using the restroom of their identity. The open policy pretty much opens it up for anyone to go into any restroom though.

Would you send your son into the men's room with that guy?

I've gotta say, the more I thought about it, the more I just want to come home and use my own bathroom. By myself. ;-)

But you know what store has nice bathrooms? Lowe's.

[banjarian]

I've boycotted Target since they announced a chain-wide policy inviting transgender customers to use the bathroom that matched their gender identity.  Ummm, no thank you.

That gave me MORE reason to shop there.  Their inclusive, progressive attitude towards transgender people makes me happy.  Even if it's a calculated move, it's one which promotes more love and acceptance.  Good for Target!  Wish everyone was so enlightened.

This is getting off topic, but would you send your daughter into a restroom with a straight up guy with a wig on? I understand fully converted transgender folks using the restroom of their identity. The open policy pretty much opens it up for anyone to go into any restroom though.

1 - Trans people and men in wigs are two different things. If you see someone who makes you uncomfortable going into a restroom, you have as much right as you ever did to choose not to go into that restroom. People prop up made-up situations about sexual predators in wigs to justify continued scrutiny and harassment of trans people.
2 - What even makes you think that a wig will make someone assault you? I've seen lots of news stories about rapists in the news lately; not one of them was wearing a wig. A wig may seem unusual to you, but why on earth do you equate it with sexual deviancy?
3 - EVERYTHING bad that can happen in a bathroom is still just as illegal as it ever was. It's still illegal to peep on people. It's still illegal to harass/assault them. It's still illegal to expose yourself. Even if a man in a wig walks into a women's restroom, he doesn't have a free pass to ogle and assault people.

All this fury and fright over "men in wigs" is just a shite excuse to limit trans rights. Please, please stop. As a woman, who uses public restrooms and who has also been the victim of sexual assault before, I have ZERO concerns about allowing trans people to use the same restroom as me. Trans people are many, many more times likely to be the victim than the perpetrator of an assault, and they deserve protection and dignity as much as any of us.

[Sibley]

I've boycotted Target since they announced a chain-wide policy inviting transgender customers to use the bathroom that matched their gender identity.  Ummm, no thank you.

That gave me MORE reason to shop there.  Their inclusive, progressive attitude towards transgender people makes me happy.  Even if it's a calculated move, it's one which promotes more love and acceptance.  Good for Target!  Wish everyone was so enlightened.

This is getting off topic, but would you send your daughter into a restroom with a straight up guy with a wig on? I understand fully converted transgender folks using the restroom of their identity. The open policy pretty much opens it up for anyone to go into any restroom though.

1 - Trans people and men in wigs are two different things. If you see someone who makes you uncomfortable going into a restroom, you have as much right as you ever did to choose not to go into that restroom. People prop up made-up situations about sexual predators in wigs to justify continued scrutiny and harassment of trans people.
2 - What even makes you think that a wig will make someone assault you? I've seen lots of news stories about rapists in the news lately; not one of them was wearing a wig. A wig may seem unusual to you, but why on earth do you equate it with sexual deviancy?
3 - EVERYTHING bad that can happen in a bathroom is still just as illegal as it ever was. It's still illegal to peep on people. It's still illegal to harass/assault them. It's still illegal to expose yourself. Even if a man in a wig walks into a women's restroom, he doesn't have a free pass to ogle and assault people.

All this fury and fright over "men in wigs" is just a shite excuse to limit trans rights. Please, please stop. As a woman, who uses public restrooms and who has also been the victim of sexual assault before, I have ZERO concerns about allowing trans people to use the same restroom as me. Trans people are many, many more times likely to be the victim than the perpetrator of an assault, and they deserve protection and dignity as much as any of us.

+1000

I met a transgender man, he was a very good friend of my then BF. I didn't know until someone told me that he had previously been a she. Very nice person overall. And my cat liked him, so you know he's not all bad.

[Khaetra]

1 - Trans people and men in wigs are two different things. If you see someone who makes you uncomfortable going into a restroom, you have as much right as you ever did to choose not to go into that restroom. People prop up made-up situations about sexual predators in wigs to justify continued scrutiny and harassment of trans people.
2 - What even makes you think that a wig will make someone assault you? I've seen lots of news stories about rapists in the news lately; not one of them was wearing a wig. A wig may seem unusual to you, but why on earth do you equate it with sexual deviancy?
3 - EVERYTHING bad that can happen in a bathroom is still just as illegal as it ever was. It's still illegal to peep on people. It's still illegal to harass/assault them. It's still illegal to expose yourself. Even if a man in a wig walks into a women's restroom, he doesn't have a free pass to ogle and assault people.

All this fury and fright over "men in wigs" is just a shite excuse to limit trans rights. Please, please stop. As a woman, who uses public restrooms and who has also been the victim of sexual assault before, I have ZERO concerns about allowing trans people to use the same restroom as me. Trans people are many, many more times likely to be the victim than the perpetrator of an assault, and they deserve protection and dignity as much as any of us.

+2000.  The whole 'Trans In the Bathroom' hype is nothing but fear-mongering.  I bet each of us, at one time or another, has been in the bathroom doing our thing when there has been a Trans person in there with us.  Did you notice?  Probably not, so why make a big stink out of it now?  Oh yeah, election year, so let's find something to get people outraged.

[merula]

1 - Trans people and men in wigs are two different things. If you see someone who makes you uncomfortable going into a restroom, you have as much right as you ever did to choose not to go into that restroom. People prop up made-up situations about sexual predators in wigs to justify continued scrutiny and harassment of trans people.
2 - What even makes you think that a wig will make someone assault you? I've seen lots of news stories about rapists in the news lately; not one of them was wearing a wig. A wig may seem unusual to you, but why on earth do you equate it with sexual deviancy?
3 - EVERYTHING bad that can happen in a bathroom is still just as illegal as it ever was. It's still illegal to peep on people. It's still illegal to harass/assault them. It's still illegal to expose yourself. Even if a man in a wig walks into a women's restroom, he doesn't have a free pass to ogle and assault people.

All this fury and fright over "men in wigs" is just a shite excuse to limit trans rights. Please, please stop. As a woman, who uses public restrooms and who has also been the victim of sexual assault before, I have ZERO concerns about allowing trans people to use the same restroom as me. Trans people are many, many more times likely to be the victim than the perpetrator of an assault, and they deserve protection and dignity as much as any of us.

+2000.  The whole 'Trans In the Bathroom' hype is nothing but fear-mongering.  I bet each of us, at one time or another, has been in the bathroom doing our thing when there has been a Trans person in there with us.  Did you notice?  Probably not, so why make a big stink out of it now?  Oh yeah, election year, so let's find something to get people outraged.

Amen

[MoonShadow]

New construction WalMart's have been making "alternative" single stall bathrooms available to the public for many years now, well before this trans-bathroom BS.  They usually called it a "family" bathroom, and it served very well for a parent of small children to take their kid to the bathroom, or use it themselves, while being under control of their situation.  It worked just as well for anyone else that felt uncomfortable or unwelcome in the standard bathrooms.  From a lib perspective, neither side of the trans-bathroom "debate" is actually arguing from a correct perspective.  It's not up to governments to decide who may or may not enter a particular bathroom, that is the purview of the business ownership.  If Target wishes to openly permit this kind of 'public choice', that is their business.  If WalMart would rather remodel their stores to have a third bathroom available for just about anyone, that is their choice.  And if you don't like what they choose, feel free to boycott that store.

But it should never have been up to judges, governors or legislatures to make that choice for business owners; that is fundamentally wrong.

[arebelspy]

This is getting off topic, but would you send your daughter into a restroom with a straight up guy with a wig on? I understand fully converted transgender folks using the restroom of their identity. The open policy pretty much opens it up for anyone to go into any restroom though.

The others answered your question much better, and I agree with the above, but to not ignore it: Yes.  I would send my daughter into a private stall in a restroom, even if there were an actual person who self identifies as a woman, even if they were born with both an X and Y chromosome (this is ignoring the idea of a strawman with a wig being in there, which I don't believe is a real thing).

It's not up to governments to decide who may or may not enter a particular bathroom, that is the purview of the business ownership.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't think Store X should be able to have a policy of "Restrooms are for whites only," for example.  We have laws to protect minorities from discrimination for a reason.

[dycker1978]

1 - Trans people and men in wigs are two different things. If you see someone who makes you uncomfortable going into a restroom, you have as much right as you ever did to choose not to go into that restroom. People prop up made-up situations about sexual predators in wigs to justify continued scrutiny and harassment of trans people.
2 - What even makes you think that a wig will make someone assault you? I've seen lots of news stories about rapists in the news lately; not one of them was wearing a wig. A wig may seem unusual to you, but why on earth do you equate it with sexual deviancy?
3 - EVERYTHING bad that can happen in a bathroom is still just as illegal as it ever was. It's still illegal to peep on people. It's still illegal to harass/assault them. It's still illegal to expose yourself. Even if a man in a wig walks into a women's restroom, he doesn't have a free pass to ogle and assault people.

All this fury and fright over "men in wigs" is just a shite excuse to limit trans rights. Please, please stop. As a woman, who uses public restrooms and who has also been the victim of sexual assault before, I have ZERO concerns about allowing trans people to use the same restroom as me. Trans people are many, many more times likely to be the victim than the perpetrator of an assault, and they deserve protection and dignity as much as any of us.

+2000.  The whole 'Trans In the Bathroom' hype is nothing but fear-mongering.  I bet each of us, at one time or another, has been in the bathroom doing our thing when there has been a Trans person in there with us.  Did you notice?  Probably not, so why make a big stink out of it now?  Oh yeah, election year, so let's find something to get people outraged.

+3000  This is 100% Hype.  This policy has been in place in my province by law for many year(6 I believe)  You know how many assaults there have been in bathrooms committed by trans people? 0

Also, it may interest some of you that the amount of people that are identifying as somewhere on the transgender spectrum is upwards of 20-25%.  These people are everywhere. 

As far as perverts using the restroom, conservative types say that gun laws wont stop gun violence, so how is a sign of a person on the door is a skirt going to stop perverts?

[MoonShadow]

It's not up to governments to decide who may or may not enter a particular bathroom, that is the purview of the business ownership.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't think Store X should be able to have a policy of "Restrooms are for whites only," for example. We have laws to protect minorities from discrimination for a reason.

Yes, we do have such laws for a reason, but not all forms of discrimination are equally bad.  At it's root, discrimination is simply the ability to decide for yourself within the limits of your proper purview.  As an example, let's switch the script, since you have already done so once.  Should a Jewish deli owner, either a survivor himself or the son of such a survivor, be required to seat & serve a 6 foot tall bald man with a swastika tattooed across his forehead?  If your first reaction to imagining that scenario is, "no, he shouldn't because [blank]" then you have just defaulted to the deli owner's legitimate right to refuse service, even though it was based upon a religious, racial and/or cultural prejudice.

But then that's a bit too obvious, isn't it?  What if the customer doesn't display such neo-nazi sympathies, but is instead a 6 foot tall bald white man wearing a prom dress.  Should the business owner get to decide with whom he does business or not? 

Even less obvious, what if our customer is a 6 foot tall white man wearing a suit & tie, but seems to randomly start swearing obscenities in the crowded deli?  (i.e. he has Tourettes Syndrome)  That's a medical handicap, right?

In the Libertarian view, these subjective decisions are best left to the business owner, because it's his/her business, and no one has as much to risk with a bad decision as the business owner.  Likewise, however, you also have the right to discriminate against the business for whatever reason you like. After all, that's what a boycott actually is; business discrimination.

[arebelspy]

I have no interest in arguing with you.

I'm just letting you know I disagree, and think protecting the vulnerable is one of the primary functions of society.

[JLee]

Side note, if you're able to tell that someone in the bathroom with you is trans, you're the creepy one. Think about that for a bit.

[MoonShadow]

I have no interest in arguing with you.

I'm just letting you know I disagree, and think protecting the vulnerable is one of the primary functions of society.

Okay, that I can agree with.  Back to trans-bathrooms, there are at least as many adults who are concerned about their children being exposed to transgender adults in public restrooms as there are transgender adults. (less than 1% of the adult population)  Whether or not you (or I) consider those concerns rational or valid is also irrelevant.  Is the third bathroom (third way?) answer not a reasonable compromise for a business owner to offer, in the interests of satisfying everyone's concerns?  Should the business owner not be permitted to offer a third way?

[MoonShadow]

Side note, if you're able to tell that someone in the bathroom with you is trans, you're the creepy one. Think about that for a bit.

Or that they are not very good at it.

[Glenstache]

It's not up to governments to decide who may or may not enter a particular bathroom, that is the purview of the business ownership.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't think Store X should be able to have a policy of "Restrooms are for whites only," for example. We have laws to protect minorities from discrimination for a reason.

Yes, we do have such laws for a reason, but not all forms of discrimination are equally bad.  At it's root, discrimination is simply the ability to decide for yourself within the limits of your proper purview.  As an example, let's switch the script, since you have already done so once.  Should a Jewish deli owner, either a survivor himself or the son of such a survivor, be required to seat & serve a 6 foot tall bald man with a swastika tattooed across his forehead?  If your first reaction to imagining that scenario is, "no, he shouldn't because [blank]" then you have just defaulted to the deli owner's legitimate right to refuse service, even though it was based upon a religious, racial and/or cultural prejudice.

But then that's a bit too obvious, isn't it?  What if the customer doesn't display such neo-nazi sympathies, but is instead a 6 foot tall bald white man wearing a prom dress.  Should the business owner get to decide with whom he does business or not? 

Even less obvious, what if our customer is a 6 foot tall white man wearing a suit & tie, but seems to randomly start swearing obscenities in the crowded deli?  (i.e. he has Terret's Syndrome)  That's a medical handicap, right?

In the Libertarian view, these subjective decisions are best left to the business owner, because it's his/her business, and no one has as much to risk with a bad decision as the business owner.  Likewise, however, you also have the right to discriminate against the business for whatever reason you like. After all, that's what a boycott actually is; business discrimination.

There is an important line between beliefs and attitudes and things which are a non-chosen part of a person such as color of skin, other ethnic/hereditary traits, sexual orientation (no, it's not a choice), or gender identity. Medical conditions such as tourette syndrome, are obviously not chosen.

Personally, I think Target is on the right side of history. I also believe that strongly anti-trans are uneducated beyond what they have seen on TV based on the comments I have heard them say or, if they are educated and have a complex understanding, are simply biased and there is no rational discussion to be had with that poitn of view. I've personally known a number of people who have transitioned (which is just a slice of the trans group), and their lives and interactions have looked nothing like what is shown in the media. The trans people I have know are good people you would be happy to have escort your son or daughter anywhere. A person is a good or bad person regardless of their gender identity. 

[Angel_fire]

Really dude..?  You couldn't make your own post and just had to have my name as the OP?    Power play much?

[golden1]

Dear lord not this again.  I guarantee almost everyone of you has shared a public bathroom with a transgender individual and never knew it.  Learn a little about this disorder and stop living your life in fear.  If you really insist on having this view, do yourself a favor and sit down and have a discussion with a transgender individual and tell them your concerns to their face.  Stop being a coward and hiding behind the government that you hate so much to make laws to protect you.

[MoonShadow]

It's not up to governments to decide who may or may not enter a particular bathroom, that is the purview of the business ownership.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't think Store X should be able to have a policy of "Restrooms are for whites only," for example. We have laws to protect minorities from discrimination for a reason.

Yes, we do have such laws for a reason, but not all forms of discrimination are equally bad.  At it's root, discrimination is simply the ability to decide for yourself within the limits of your proper purview.  As an example, let's switch the script, since you have already done so once.  Should a Jewish deli owner, either a survivor himself or the son of such a survivor, be required to seat & serve a 6 foot tall bald man with a swastika tattooed across his forehead?  If your first reaction to imagining that scenario is, "no, he shouldn't because [blank]" then you have just defaulted to the deli owner's legitimate right to refuse service, even though it was based upon a religious, racial and/or cultural prejudice.

But then that's a bit too obvious, isn't it?  What if the customer doesn't display such neo-nazi sympathies, but is instead a 6 foot tall bald white man wearing a prom dress.  Should the business owner get to decide with whom he does business or not? 

Even less obvious, what if our customer is a 6 foot tall white man wearing a suit & tie, but seems to randomly start swearing obscenities in the crowded deli?  (i.e. he has Terret's Syndrome)  That's a medical handicap, right?

In the Libertarian view, these subjective decisions are best left to the business owner, because it's his/her business, and no one has as much to risk with a bad decision as the business owner.  Likewise, however, you also have the right to discriminate against the business for whatever reason you like. After all, that's what a boycott actually is; business discrimination.

There is an important line between beliefs and attitudes and things which are a non-chosen part of a person such as color of skin, other ethnic/hereditary traits, sexual orientation (no, it's not a choice), or gender identity. Medical conditions such as tourette syndrome, are obviously not chosen.

Oh, I certainly agree; but is the medical issues (Tourette's) of one customer really the concern of the business owner, even if he actually is aware of the issue?  It's not like it's the only deli on the block, there is likely another one of comparable quality right around the corner.  I made up strawman scenarios in order to demonstrate that the details actually matter, even to those who are sorely opposed to discrimination.  It's not the obvious issues that are the majority of the problems, generally.  After all, most transgender people have been using their identity gender bathroom for many years without anyone noticing.  That's not really what this is about, this is more about the transvestite crowd pretending to be transgender, for whatever reason.  And don't tell me that doesn't happen, I've seen it for myself.

Personally, I think Target is on the right side of history. I also believe that strongly anti-trans are uneducated beyond what they have seen on TV based on the comments I have heard them say or, if they are educated and have a complex understanding, are simply biased and there is no rational discussion to be had with that poitn of view.

The part I highlighted is the only part that is relevant in this entire paragraph.  It matters not at all that you think that the anti-trans crowed is uneducated, biased or otherwise without merit.  It still matters to the businesses because they are still customers too.  The business is in business to serve all the customers that they can.  They have no interest in alienating transgender customers or their supporters, nor the "anti" crowd at all.  The government solution is to decide what the businesses should do, and force them to do it, even if that is against the business' own interests.  Let me reframe the 'rights' issue so you can have a different context.  I have a right to own a gun, but I don't have a right to enter Target with that gun if they post a sign saying "no guns" on the front door.  I must choose to, temporarily, check my own "rights" at the door, or shop elsewhere.  It's not Target's problem if I can't find another store that will let me shop there armed, they are the property owner, and can make up such a rule if they wish.  It's not in their own interests, however, because they will lose more business to WalMart.  I don't doubt that Target is on the right side of history, but they also made the choice themselves.  Just let it play out, and in the long run, (if you are correct about the right side of history) all of their competitors will end up there eventually anyway.  Threat of government force is not required in every case of "discrimination" injustice.

I've personally known a number of people who have transitioned (which is just a slice of the trans group), and their lives and interactions have looked nothing like what is shown in the media. The trans people I have know are good people you would be happy to have escort your son or daughter anywhere. A person is a good or bad person regardless of their gender identity.

I don't doubt that, but don't discount the opinions of your opposition either.  You don't have to consider their concerns legitimate to understand that they have them.

[MoonShadow]

Dear lord not this again.  I guarantee almost everyone of you has shared a public bathroom with a transgender individual and never knew it.  Learn a little about this disorder and stop living your life in fear.  If you really insist on having this view, do yourself a favor and sit down and have a discussion with a transgender individual and tell them your concerns to their face.  Stop being a coward and hiding behind the government that you hate so much to make laws to protect you.

Who are you talking to?

[RetiredAt63]

Is this a guy issue since you have urinals?  Seems more men than women are posting here all upset about this.  Should we do a count? Once I am in a stall I have privacy, and if the woman washing her hands next to me started out as a man that is not a big deal.  I don't really want a person identifying as a man in our washroom though.  They are messy around toilets.

Lots of businesses have one washroom, one person at a time (I am thinking Canadian Tire and a lot of grocery stores) so they get used by everyone, one at a time (which is why I have come to conclude that men are messy around public toilets).  Lots more (and malls) have men's, women's, and family, so if someone needs extra privacy they have the choice.

Why am I thinking this is a tempest in a teapot when all these young folks are so upset?  What is with youth these days?  ;-)

[MoonShadow]

Why am I thinking this is a tempest in a teapot when all these young folks are so upset?  What is with youth these days?  ;-)

+1

This is part of my point about leaving the solution to the business owners, they have been doing pretty well so far.  Are two primary comparisons are Target's choice of permitting gender-choice in their restrooms, and WalMart that typically builds a third family/other lockable stall bathroom for whomever.  Even more recently, I've noticed new resturants that don't build gender bathrooms at all, but instead have several lockable individual bathrooms, each with a toilet & a urinal.  Completely eliminates the issue altogether.

[Angel_fire]

no mermaids..?

[Metric Mouse]

I have no interest in arguing with you.

I'm just letting you know I disagree, and think protecting the vulnerable is one of the primary functions of society.

Okay, that I can agree with.  Back to trans-bathrooms, there are at least as many adults who are concerned about their children being exposed to transgender adults in public restrooms as there are transgender adults. (less than 1% of the adult population)  Whether or not you (or I) consider those concerns rational or valid is also irrelevant.  Is the third bathroom (third way?) answer not a reasonable compromise for a business owner to offer, in the interests of satisfying everyone's concerns?  Should the business owner not be permitted to offer a third way?

And if bathrooms, with stalls, are ok... (my opinion, not that anyone cares, they are; whoever I'm peeing next to is much less concerning to me than the business in my hand)  What about high school/middle school locker rooms? Do these venues present more of a challenge or concern than bathrooms? Would there be any adverse effects of allowing young people with different genetalia to shower together after gym class?  Or should we be moving in that direction anyway, for multiple reasons?

Just had to kick the hornets nest...

[daverobev]

So what I'm hearing is:

Urinals are for people with penises that only need to piss

Toilets are for everyone else

So we can just have one room with a few urinals, and another with a row of toilet stalls.

I.. don't see any logical issue with that, and it completely goes around sex.

[RetiredAt63]

So what I'm hearing is:

Urinals are for people with penises that only need to piss

Toilets are for everyone else

So we can just have one room with a few urinals, and another with a row of toilet stalls.

I.. don't see any logical issue with that, and it completely goes around sex.

No, I don't want a person who identifies as male in the stall next to me.  But if that person has XY but identifies as female I am OK.

You male types out there want to know women's biggest beef about washrooms?  It is not that there might be a transgender used to be male person in there with us.  It is that because of the differences in build it takes women longer, so that at events with lots of people and short time frames of use (think of intermission at a concert) the lineups for women are much worse than the lineups for men, because the washrooms are built to the same capacity.  Evey woman I have ever chatted with (in line at a washroom) agrees that this sucks, we want true equality - true equality means that if 50 men and 50 women want to use the facilities, the last woman finishes at the same time as the last man, instead of the present situation, which is that as that 50th man finishes, there are still 25 women waiting in line.

[daverobev]

So what I'm hearing is:

Urinals are for people with penises that only need to piss

Toilets are for everyone else

So we can just have one room with a few urinals, and another with a row of toilet stalls.

I.. don't see any logical issue with that, and it completely goes around sex.

No, I don't want a person who identifies as male in the stall next to me.  But if that person has XY but identifies as female I am OK.

You male types out there want to know women's biggest beef about washrooms?  It is not that there might be a transgender used to be male person in there with us.  It is that because of the differences in build it takes women longer, so that at events with lots of people and short time frames of use (think of intermission at a concert) the lineups for women are much worse than the lineups for men, because the washrooms are built to the same capacity.  Evey woman I have ever chatted with (in line at a washroom) agrees that this sucks, we want true equality - true equality means that if 50 men and 50 women want to use the facilities, the last woman finishes at the same time as the last man, instead of the present situation, which is that as that 50th man finishes, there are still 25 women waiting in line.

How does what I suggested mean that doesn't happen? You have a reasonable number of quick turnover urinals, and a larger number of stalls. Anyone wanting to use a stall waits in a unisex queue.

Or are you saying you explicitly want men NOT to have the option of using a urinal because that is unfairly efficient?

[BlueMR2]

My wife works at Target and we're both not sure what the fuss is about either way (can I facepunch both the pro and con people?).  Besides the standard group Men and Women's restrooms, there are also individual Unisex restrooms in the store.  Those are the ones the "think of the children" people should have been using before anyways.  The policy really has near zero impact on how things work since there are no guards inspecting people's equipment at the doors anyways.  Try and peep on others, you get security called on you.  Don't peep and you won't.

[JLee]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/woman-accused-being-transgender-kicked-out-walmart/

This is where ridiculous "use the bathroom for the gender you were born as" policies end up...

[MoonShadow]

So what I'm hearing is:

Urinals are for people with penises that only need to piss

Toilets are for everyone else

So we can just have one room with a few urinals, and another with a row of toilet stalls.

I.. don't see any logical issue with that, and it completely goes around sex.

No, I don't want a person who identifies as male in the stall next to me.  But if that person has XY but identifies as female I am OK.

You male types out there want to know women's biggest beef about washrooms?  It is not that there might be a transgender used to be male person in there with us.  It is that because of the differences in build it takes women longer, so that at events with lots of people and short time frames of use (think of intermission at a concert) the lineups for women are much worse than the lineups for men, because the washrooms are built to the same capacity.  Evey woman I have ever chatted with (in line at a washroom) agrees that this sucks, we want true equality - true equality means that if 50 men and 50 women want to use the facilities, the last woman finishes at the same time as the last man, instead of the present situation, which is that as that 50th man finishes, there are still 25 women waiting in line.

I worked in construction for many years.  While most buildings have equally sized bathrooms, not all do.  Both the National Underground Railway Museum & the Paul Brown Stadium; jobs in Cincinnati that I spent a lot of lifespan involved in, have larger Womens' restrooms.  IIRC, the stadium would either have 50% more stalls than the nearest Mens' had stalls plus urinals, or there would be an extra Womens' bathroom somewhere nearby, depending upon the constraints of the architecture in the immediate areas.  So your complaint is well enough known among architects, and at least some of them do try to accommodate your gender when building large projects, but keep in mind that there is a minimum standard number of stalls required for both genders due to public building codes, and for most buildings that is more than is necessary (or often even reasonable).

[MoonShadow]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/woman-accused-being-transgender-kicked-out-walmart/

This is where ridiculous "use the bathroom for the gender you were born as" policies end up...

That is ridiculous, but it was also a predictable result of one group making this into a political issue.  But note that she wasn't actually kicked out of the restroom, she encountered a rude individual inside that bathroom that made incorrect assumptions about her natural gender based upon appearances.  Bigots exist, this is not WalMart's fault.

[JLee]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/woman-accused-being-transgender-kicked-out-walmart/

This is where ridiculous "use the bathroom for the gender you were born as" policies end up...

That is ridiculous, but it was also a predictable result of one group making this into a political issue.  But note that she wasn't actually kicked out of the restroom, she encountered a rude individual inside that bathroom that made incorrect assumptions about her natural gender based upon appearances.  Bigots exist, this is not WalMart's fault.

Who do you propose will go around kicking people out of bathrooms, then, if not whatever random bigot happens to feel offended? 

[MoonShadow]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/woman-accused-being-transgender-kicked-out-walmart/

This is where ridiculous "use the bathroom for the gender you were born as" policies end up...

That is ridiculous, but it was also a predictable result of one group making this into a political issue.  But note that she wasn't actually kicked out of the restroom, she encountered a rude individual inside that bathroom that made incorrect assumptions about her natural gender based upon appearances.  Bigots exist, this is not WalMart's fault.

Who do you propose will go around kicking people out of bathrooms, then, if not whatever random bigot happens to feel offended?

When it becomes defined by lawmakers, it will be bigots with badges & guns.  Does that sound like an improvement to you?

[JLee]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/woman-accused-being-transgender-kicked-out-walmart/

This is where ridiculous "use the bathroom for the gender you were born as" policies end up...

That is ridiculous, but it was also a predictable result of one group making this into a political issue.  But note that she wasn't actually kicked out of the restroom, she encountered a rude individual inside that bathroom that made incorrect assumptions about her natural gender based upon appearances.  Bigots exist, this is not WalMart's fault.

Who do you propose will go around kicking people out of bathrooms, then, if not whatever random bigot happens to feel offended?

When it becomes defined by lawmakers, it will be bigots with badges & guns.  Does that sound like an improvement to you?

It has been defined federally already.  Individual states are suing for their alleged right to discrimination.  Regardless, unless you are implying that law enforcement will be posted outside of every bathroom to screen people going in, it's still going to be somebody calling the police because they feel that someone is using the wrong bathroom. That's....ridiculous. 

[RetiredAt63]

No, I don't want a person who identifies as male in the stall next to me.  But if that person has XY but identifies as female I am OK.

You male types out there want to know women's biggest beef about washrooms?  It is not that there might be a transgender used to be male person in there with us.  It is that because of the differences in build it takes women longer, so that at events with lots of people and short time frames of use (think of intermission at a concert) the lineups for women are much worse than the lineups for men, because the washrooms are built to the same capacity.  Evey woman I have ever chatted with (in line at a washroom) agrees that this sucks, we want true equality - true equality means that if 50 men and 50 women want to use the facilities, the last woman finishes at the same time as the last man, instead of the present situation, which is that as that 50th man finishes, there are still 25 women waiting in line.

How does what I suggested mean that doesn't happen? You have a reasonable number of quick turnover urinals, and a larger number of stalls. Anyone wanting to use a stall waits in a unisex queue.

Or are you saying you explicitly want men NOT to have the option of using a urinal because that is unfairly efficient?

I think we are confusing each other here. 

I was assuming the stalls were more than one in a washroom, i.e. the person next to me could be a guy.  If they are all single person washrooms, that is fine.   Really, I would rather see a place have two single use washrooms than one for each gender, then as you said, we queue up and take our turns.  I am starting to see this, my car dealership put this in when they did their remodel. 

Urinals are great for guys, fast in and out.  Not an issue.  Of use to me indirectly since it lessens demand for washrooms with toilets.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/woman-accused-being-transgender-kicked-out-walmart/

This is where ridiculous "use the bathroom for the gender you were born as" policies end up...

That is ridiculous, but it was also a predictable result of one group making this into a political issue.  But note that she wasn't actually kicked out of the restroom, she encountered a rude individual inside that bathroom that made incorrect assumptions about her natural gender based upon appearances.  Bigots exist, this is not WalMart's fault.

Who do you propose will go around kicking people out of bathrooms, then, if not whatever random bigot happens to feel offended?

When it becomes defined by lawmakers, it will be bigots with badges & guns.  Does that sound like an improvement to you?

It has been defined federally already.  Individual states are suing for their alleged right to discrimination.  Regardless, unless you are implying that law enforcement will be posted outside of every bathroom to screen people going in, it's still going to be somebody calling the police because they feel that someone is using the wrong bathroom. That's....ridiculous.

Yes, that is ridiculous, as I have already said.  It is still ridiculous if the federal government makes the rules, too.  No room for a third way, and it will be enforced by a man with a badge & a gun, whether it turns out to be a state or federal issue.  No one in the public sphere is arguing from the correct position; that it is a private property issue, not a public access issue; and that the property owner gets to figure out who goes where and does what.

[JLee]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/woman-accused-being-transgender-kicked-out-walmart/

This is where ridiculous "use the bathroom for the gender you were born as" policies end up...

That is ridiculous, but it was also a predictable result of one group making this into a political issue.  But note that she wasn't actually kicked out of the restroom, she encountered a rude individual inside that bathroom that made incorrect assumptions about her natural gender based upon appearances.  Bigots exist, this is not WalMart's fault.

Who do you propose will go around kicking people out of bathrooms, then, if not whatever random bigot happens to feel offended?

When it becomes defined by lawmakers, it will be bigots with badges & guns.  Does that sound like an improvement to you?

It has been defined federally already.  Individual states are suing for their alleged right to discrimination.  Regardless, unless you are implying that law enforcement will be posted outside of every bathroom to screen people going in, it's still going to be somebody calling the police because they feel that someone is using the wrong bathroom. That's....ridiculous.

Yes, that is ridiculous, as I have already said.  It is still ridiculous if the federal government makes the rules, too.  No room for a third way, and it will be enforced by a man with a badge & a gun, whether it turns out to be a state or federal issue.  No one in the public sphere is arguing from the correct position; that it is a private property issue, not a public access issue; and that the property owner gets to figure out who goes where and does what.

If the policy is that anyone goes wherever they identify, there's no problem and nothing to enforce...because no law is being broken.  If it's a private property issue with individual restrictions, that then introduces a discriminatory law that would invite (and require, in the minds of the people pushing for these laws) enforcement.

The only way it's "enforced by a man with a badge & a gun" is if the law specifies who can go in what bathroom.

If somebody is going to conduct illegal activity in a bathroom, how is a law that says they can't be in the bathroom going to change anything?  That sounds eerily similar to the thought process behind gun-free zones.

[daverobev]

No, I don't want a person who identifies as male in the stall next to me.  But if that person has XY but identifies as female I am OK.

You male types out there want to know women's biggest beef about washrooms?  It is not that there might be a transgender used to be male person in there with us.  It is that because of the differences in build it takes women longer, so that at events with lots of people and short time frames of use (think of intermission at a concert) the lineups for women are much worse than the lineups for men, because the washrooms are built to the same capacity.  Evey woman I have ever chatted with (in line at a washroom) agrees that this sucks, we want true equality - true equality means that if 50 men and 50 women want to use the facilities, the last woman finishes at the same time as the last man, instead of the present situation, which is that as that 50th man finishes, there are still 25 women waiting in line.

How does what I suggested mean that doesn't happen? You have a reasonable number of quick turnover urinals, and a larger number of stalls. Anyone wanting to use a stall waits in a unisex queue.

Or are you saying you explicitly want men NOT to have the option of using a urinal because that is unfairly efficient?

I think we are confusing each other here. 

I was assuming the stalls were more than one in a washroom, i.e. the person next to me could be a guy.  If they are all single person washrooms, that is fine.   Really, I would rather see a place have two single use washrooms than one for each gender, then as you said, we queue up and take our turns.  I am starting to see this, my car dealership put this in when they did their remodel. 

Urinals are great for guys, fast in and out.  Not an issue.  Of use to me indirectly since it lessens demand for washrooms with toilets.

No I mean in a row of 8-10 stalls, what does it matter if it's all men, all women, or a mixture? Safety? Peeping toms?

I mean... I've sat in public toilets with men either side of me before, no problem.

Is it a societal thing, solely? Like, there's no "real" reason, it's just that women don't want to be near men when vulnerable - squatting on the pot?

[MoonShadow]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/woman-accused-being-transgender-kicked-out-walmart/

This is where ridiculous "use the bathroom for the gender you were born as" policies end up...

That is ridiculous, but it was also a predictable result of one group making this into a political issue.  But note that she wasn't actually kicked out of the restroom, she encountered a rude individual inside that bathroom that made incorrect assumptions about her natural gender based upon appearances.  Bigots exist, this is not WalMart's fault.

Who do you propose will go around kicking people out of bathrooms, then, if not whatever random bigot happens to feel offended?

When it becomes defined by lawmakers, it will be bigots with badges & guns.  Does that sound like an improvement to you?

It has been defined federally already.  Individual states are suing for their alleged right to discrimination.  Regardless, unless you are implying that law enforcement will be posted outside of every bathroom to screen people going in, it's still going to be somebody calling the police because they feel that someone is using the wrong bathroom. That's....ridiculous.

Yes, that is ridiculous, as I have already said.  It is still ridiculous if the federal government makes the rules, too.  No room for a third way, and it will be enforced by a man with a badge & a gun, whether it turns out to be a state or federal issue.  No one in the public sphere is arguing from the correct position; that it is a private property issue, not a public access issue; and that the property owner gets to figure out who goes where and does what.

If the policy is that anyone goes wherever they identify, there's no problem and nothing to enforce...because no law is being broken.  If it's a private property issue with individual restrictions, that then introduces a discriminatory law that would invite (and require, in the minds of the people pushing for these laws) enforcement.

The only way it's "enforced by a man with a badge & a gun" is if the law specifies who can go in what bathroom.

Well, in practice, one side's position would be enforced by lawyers and lawsuits, against the property owners.  So if the property owner is going to be liable regardless, why shouldn't they be able to offer a third way?

If somebody is going to conduct illegal activity in a bathroom, how is a law that says they can't be in the bathroom going to change anything?  That sounds eerily similar to the thought process behind gun-free zones.

Yes, it does.  Again, I'm not advocating for a law on either side.  I'm advocating for the absence of such a law.  Just let the owners work it out.  They already have in many cases; hence the examples presented of unisex stalls with lockable doors, the third bathroom option, etc.  If you encounter a company with a policy you don't like, don't shop there.  Feel free to tell anyone you like that they shouldn't shop there, and tell them why.  Or not, whatever.  This wasn't really an issue before now, and it's not really an issue now either.  As you have already noted, someone has to break the law to actually identify a transgender unless they tell you first, so the only people crying about unlawful discrimination are the militant leftists provoking a response from the militant religious.  I don't care.  I just think it's all so sad that this is actually what we consider to be an important use of our time in the US today, considering we have many real problems yet to resolve.

[arebelspy]

I just think it's all so sad that this is actually what we consider to be an important use of our time in the US today, considering we have many real problems yet to resolve.

Again, protecting the vulnerable is a large part of what society's job is.  If there are other problems to be sorted (and there are), that doesn't mean this shouldn't be important as well.

[MoonShadow]

I just think it's all so sad that this is actually what we consider to be an important use of our time in the US today, considering we have many real problems yet to resolve.

Again, protecting the vulnerable is a large part of what society's job is.  If there are other problems to be sorted (and there are), that doesn't mean this shouldn't be important as well.

And, again, there are people on both sides of this issue that believe that they are doing exactly that.  You discount their perspectives by implying that is what you are doing.  In reality, that is not what either side is actually accomplishing.  Instead, both sides are simply managing to expand the reach of governments (at one level or another) at the expense of property rights.

[RetiredAt63]

No I mean in a row of 8-10 stalls, what does it matter if it's all men, all women, or a mixture? Safety? Peeping toms?

I mean... I've sat in public toilets with men either side of me before, no problem.

Is it a societal thing, solely? Like, there's no "real" reason, it's just that women don't want to be near men when vulnerable - squatting on the pot?

Hmm, we are digging deep here.  Partly it is an age and socialization thing, I was in my 40's before I saw a urinal, call me sheltered.  DD had seen one by 7, same time - we were at a girl-heavy event and the organizers commandeered most of the men's washrooms (they did leave a few, which were not used much). It's fair, we were at a boy-heavy activity once and most of the women's washrooms were commandeered for the boys (literally, Beaver over-nighter at the baseball stadium in Toronto, we were all on the field).
 
Partly it is privacy, at least when I was growing up we grew up guarding our privacy.  It took a while to get used to having my husband walk in on me when we were first married. 

And definitely the vulnerability - actually very definitely the vulnerability.  Both while doing whatever and while washing afterwards - women are more vulnerable in public because we have purses, may have our shopping or children or whatever with us, and it can be awkward managing all that while washing hands without worrying about the person next to you.  So much so that if I am in a mall where the washrooms are down a corridor, and especially if they are not visible from the main area, I want the women's washroom to be first and the men's further back, I don't want to have to walk past a bunch of men (and think of a woman who was avoiding an abusive man, if he knew her routine it would be an easy place to trap her).  Am I paranoid?  I don't know, but I can see situations where it could be an issue.  Much more so that the transgender brouhaha.

[NumberJohnny5]

Question, if you saw an individual go into a family bathroom (by themselves, not with a child), wouldn't you look at him/her a bit oddly? If you had a child and had an "actual" need to use the family bathroom, you might have a few words with the person who selfishly used it, causing your child to wet himself because you had to wait.

I don't think putting a trans person in a situation where he/she/other will draw even more attention to themselves is a good idea.

Could we reverse things? Have a unisex bathroom with actual privacy stalls (seriously, a 1/4" gap where people can see everything you're doing is NOT privacy). I'm sure you can even have urinals in there (in fact you'd want them...you don't want to make a lazy man go into a stall with the lid down). Anyone who is uncomfortable in that situation (for any reason, whether you don't want your daughter around peeing men, or you don't want to share a restroom with someone who may be trans, or you're disabled and need the extra space) can use one of the private rooms.

Oh, and let's not talk about the private rooms that are always locked (sometimes they have a sign saying to see the manager, sometimes they don't). They may as well not exist.

[shelivesthedream]

In America, do y'all not have disabled toilets? In England, the usual setup is that you encounter three doors:

1. Ladies'. (Row of stalls, row of baisins.)
2. Men's. (I am given to understand that there is a mixture of stalls and urinals, row of baisins.)
3. Disabled. (One large stall with toilet and baisin in the same room, handle next to toilet, alarm cord, nappy changing table, stuff like that.)

People use the disabled toilet all the time if there's no one particular waiting for it, or if they have children, or a lot of stuff, or whatever. That would totally be an undercover option for transgender people who were worried, although I accept that it would be a bit sad for them to feel like that was the only one they could use.

Personally I am a bit skeeved out by a bathroom with a row of unisex stalls, but I would be happy with either individual unisex toilets like the disabled one I described above, or the option of men's, women's or unisex bathrooms (and a push to have stalls with walls that reach to the actual ground, not six inches off the floor so I can see the people next to me's shoes) so you can use whichever one you like (whichever line is shorter...!)

[banjarian]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/woman-accused-being-transgender-kicked-out-walmart/

This is where ridiculous "use the bathroom for the gender you were born as" policies end up...

That is ridiculous, but it was also a predictable result of one group making this into a political issue.  But note that she wasn't actually kicked out of the restroom, she encountered a rude individual inside that bathroom that made incorrect assumptions about her natural gender based upon appearances.  Bigots exist, this is not WalMart's fault.

Who do you propose will go around kicking people out of bathrooms, then, if not whatever random bigot happens to feel offended?

This, this, this. For the record, I strongly disagree with rules requiring people to use a certain restroom depending on sex at birth. But even if that wasn't an issue, how on earth are we going to enforce these rules? Who will do the enforcing? How will we enforce them? Genital inspections? ID cards stating your legal gender? There's just no way to enforce a rule like this that doesn't end up being 10x creepier than the imaginary perverts who are pretending to be women to get access to a bathroom. I would rather pee next to a "man in a wig" than have someone check my gender on the way in.

[banjarian]

In America, do y'all not have disabled toilets? In England, the usual setup is that you encounter three doors:

1. Ladies'. (Row of stalls, row of baisins.)
2. Men's. (I am given to understand that there is a mixture of stalls and urinals, row of baisins.)
3. Disabled. (One large stall with toilet and baisin in the same room, handle next to toilet, alarm cord, nappy changing table, stuff like that.)

People use the disabled toilet all the time if there's no one particular waiting for it, or if they have children, or a lot of stuff, or whatever. That would totally be an undercover option for transgender people who were worried, although I accept that it would be a bit sad for them to feel like that was the only one they could use.

Personally I am a bit skeeved out by a bathroom with a row of unisex stalls, but I would be happy with either individual unisex toilets like the disabled one I described above, or the option of men's, women's or unisex bathrooms (and a push to have stalls with walls that reach to the actual ground, not six inches off the floor so I can see the people next to me's shoes) so you can use whichever one you like (whichever line is shorter...!)

The usual setup in public restrooms here is to have a large row of stalls, with one or two much larger stalls that are handicapped-accessible. Then a row of sinks, which usually has one or two accessible sinks. It's usually all one big room, but with some accessible toilets and sinks.

If the business is small, they'll usually only have two single-use bathrooms - one male, one female, both accessible.

[radram]

I must admit I gave this issue little to no thought prior to the executive order.  Resistance to change is built into our DNA, and I think that resistance is what is fueling the issue.  That resistance will also prevent the next president from simply reversing the decision, especially if the first attempt of reversal does not occur for 4 or 8 more years.  I had a life experience that finished forming my opinion on the matter.

We just returned from our first out-of-country trip.  Italy for 3 weeks. WOW... what an experience.  While there, I noticed Italy has a different toilet setup than we do.

We probably went to 3 different toilets per day for 21 straight days.  Although this might be my bias talking, I believe there were only a very small handful of places that had different bathrooms.  All airports and bus stations seemed to have separate rooms for men and women, but I can only recall 2 or 3 smaller public places (restaurants and shops, etc.) that had more than 1 toilet.  In fact, most places (80% - 90%) had 0.

Here is the setup for most places that had toilet facilities for their customers(and always only for customers):  One room with a sink.  Inside that room were any number of stalls.  Walk in, pick a stall, come out, wash up and leave.

Some of the stalls were marked men and women, but I NEVER walked into one of those rooms to see a line of women using only the "women" stall, while the "men" stall was open and vacant.  If there was an unused stall, the next in line used it. 

The stalls did seem more like rooms, with doors and walls usually going floor to ceiling (often without toilet seats and an empty toilet paper roll).  After a small time, that was just the way it was.

Lack of public access can quickly change your opinion( especially with small children).  We found ourselves restricting fluids until we knew we were in a place that had a facility we could use without paying (.50 Euro per visit).  We were quickly glad to find ANY facility, and I never cared who else was there.

Now that we are back, I could not care less if there is a man or woman next to me, and I am grateful for the "all the bathrooms I want all the time" attitude of the good old USofA.

My opinion is that in a very short time this will be a non-issue, unless the long term solution to the order is fewer public bathrooms. 

[Northwestie]

Thanks for a wider perspective.  My teacher friends here in Seattle say the kids a like -- "whatever" and couldn't care less.

It seems it's the stodgy old folks getting wrapped around the axel about it.  Agreed - in a few years the question will be "why was there such a fuss"