I know it was a typo, but I can’t help but picture that lot standing outside public toilets quizzing people to decide who can and can’t use them based on sporting gender stereotypes. Seems like the kind of cruel, dumb power-trip they’d go for.
“Nah you know too much about football and boxing, and not enough about netball or tennis - so you can’t use the woman’s lav, mate. Off to the gents or on yer bike”
My apologies if it came over that I find this acceptable or appropriate. It’s plainly a bullshit attempt to make people’s lives harder and to stoke division. It’s crap.
It’s just that the post made out out was slightly more crap than it actually is.
As I said, self-contained universal toilets (i.e. a room with one toilet, one basin and a lockable door) would satisfy concerns about “privacy and dignity”. But that is precisely the problem, because they offer privacy and dignity for everyone.
I don’t think that it is possible to make it more crap than it actually is. It encourages policing of “are you really a woman,” singles out trans folks for “separate but equal” type treatment and empowers those who would like to make trans folks out to be a threat to “normal, good, law-abiding” people. The only way this would be in any sense not-crap would be eliminating communal toilets as a whole and only endorsing single seat, unisex rest rooms. This is a great idea, but rather unlikely to happen. So, yeah, still crappy as all hell.
My previous work did this.
The terfs complained that they couldn’t comfortable go pee if they might have to meet a man coming out. Or something nonsensical like that, so instead of 15 individual gender neutral cubicles it went to 6 male, 6 female, 3 gender neutral.
The funny thing was that there were more women on the floor than men, so they were much more likely to have to queue.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
