Transgender 'agenda' fought by unlikely alliance...

[Johnnny5]

huh?

This is not expensive or complicated. Its replacing existing stalls with full height except for 1/8 inch gap at the top for air circulation.

What you're describing is not a single user, lockable restroom. The expense of converting public restrooms into single user, lockable restrooms would be absolutely enormous! In most buildings it would involve a massive amount of demolition work and moving plumbing that has been planned far in advance and set in concrete.

And this is not a problem right now, in sex-specific washrooms?

Really?

Of course it's a problem in sex-specific washrooms, but again with single user restrooms it would be much worse. When I lived in Sarasota, Florida I worked in a warehouse facility that had multiple single user unisex restrooms that were accessed from outside as they were shared by multiple tenants. You needed a key to use them, but the local homeless population somehow found a way around that. Working the night shift I would routinely find the restroom doors locked from the inside for long periods of time with no response from those using them. Finding soiled clothing and drug paraphernalia was a fairly regular occurrence. Since they knew no one could walk in on them, people would also use the sinks to bath and even the floors as beds to escape the weather.

Look, I'm not opposed to unisex bathrooms. When properly designed they can be a godsend to those with opposite sex young children or disabled dependents. That said, the idea that the fix for this issue is to gut, redesign and remodel all public restrooms to accommodate those that refuse to use the facility that aligns with their sex is preposterous.

[oladub]

Canadian Visitor, I Googled "single sex bathrooms Canada" to verify your mention that single sex bathroom renovations were common in Toronto. The first two linked articles listed were -

Canadian malls add gender-neutral washrooms to promote inclusivity

and
Gender-neutral bathrooms gaining popularity across Canada

Canada is indeed pushing this more than the U.S.. The beneficiaries seem to be the LGBT mini-crowd who advocate it and property owners who can save money by forcing everyone into the same bathroom in the name of being progressive. I also saw a claim that parents could go into bathrooms with opposite sex kids. However, parents do that now with their small children.

The shopping mall article mentions one mall that has one same sex bathroom as well as seven sets of single sex bathrooms. That seems a reasonable response to political imperatives. Some low profit margin restaurants cited expense problems were they to renovate.

The second article is more about why all this is going on in Canada from the perspective of the LGBT community. "Michael Bach, CEO of the Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion, said Bill C16, which was passed last summer, means every public facility, including elementary schools, needs to conform and accommodate the LGBTQ2 community." Canada is ahead of the U.S., if "ahead" is the proper term", in terms of legislating this progressive agenda item.

Scrolling way down to the comments on this second article, I can't find one bit of support for single sex bathrooms from real women. The first comment begins, "Not one woman in my circle of family and friends wants this". Maybe there is a disconnect between the progressive agenda and what women want on this point.

I'm more ambivalent although I prefer single sex facilities. Port-a-potties, family restrooms and other common restrooms aren't a big deal but I don't like having a common area between the stalls and wash basins with a door to the hallway. I would suggest more of an open wall instead of a door separating single sex bathrooms from the hall. That way, women wouldn't have to go into a big room where men might be hanging around to get to a locked toilet. Glancing in from the hall, one might see people washing their hands but I think it would remove the worry about women having to walk into a potentially scary situation.

I remember that the former Chicago Greyhound station used to have a women only sitting area. It always had a lot of women in it. Their choice but now progressives have prioritized the wishes of the political trans community over the choices of women.

[Richard]

^ CCDI

CCDI believes that effectively managing diversity and inclusion, and human rights and equity is a strategic imperative for all Canadian organizations that wish to remain relevant and competitive.

In other words if you do not believe as we do and follow our agenda,we will make sure that you no longer remain relevant or competitive.

Another great Canadian “non profit” designed to push the socialist agenda of conform or we will make sure you do not exist.

Where do they get thier funding?

[Zacha341]

I cannot get the 'reply with Quote' option to work [[for some reason) so I'll have to manage cut and paste... in part Oladub post #27 said:

The first comment begins, "Not one woman in my circle of family and friends wants this". Maybe there is a disconnect between the progressive agenda and what women want on this point.

Yep, the comment section of many articles is where real truth is found. Most women do not want this. We know intuitively if not politically that this is all heading down a bad path. But to tow the progressive agenda many went along... especially in the gay community initially. That is changing.

'Glancing in from the hall, one might see people washing their hands but I think it would remove the worry about women having to walk into a potentially scary situation.

I remember that the former Chicago Greyhound station used to have a women only sitting area. It always had a lot of women in it. Their choice but now progressives have prioritized the wishes of the political trans community over the choices of women.'

Yes, the thread starts of conveying that women of varied strata and political leanings are questioning the trans agenda.

In the quest for equality and protection of one group, another is having theres removed. The whole bathroom thing for example only works if women cead their desire to not share EVERY space, with every gender or sex variance at any time.

Thus we get the confusion, cross purposes and conflation. Obviously so as some of the same women initially championed gender fluidity etc. So we've got some back-tracking to attend to here.

Further, I personally, do not find our brave new progressive world so neatly constrained and mindful that inappropriate sexual trespass will not be an issue impacting children in these new bathroom configurations.

The culture clearly shows more sexual depravity, not less. You don't have to be Mrs. Grundy to see this. I'm not buying that removing sex distinctions resolves this. Nope.

And NO child of mine would not be part of the trial-run.

Again the cross purposes and out workings: Ask women how they would feel about having transgendered men serving prison time side by side. Most would not desire such.

And as I said women will be the voice of challenge in this.

I may not be a feminist but I fully champion women [[and men) who are speaking out!

[Zacha341]

I cannot edit or revised what I wrote above on any level. Meant to italicize Oladub's comments below for distinction from what I wrote [[thanks):

'Glancing in from the hall, one might see people washing their hands but I think it would remove the worry about women having to walk into a potentially scary situation.

I remember that the former Chicago Greyhound station used to have a women only sitting area. It always had a lot of women in it. Their choice but now progressives have prioritized the wishes of the political trans community over the choices of women.'

[Zacha341]

OK, quoting ability has resumed. Good...

IMO, the rub is that the construct of 'inclusion' is too often presented as a standard of value stand-alone.

What's forgotten in the wave of progress is the judgement as to WHAT is included.

^ CCDI

CCDI believes that effectively managing diversity and inclusion, and human rights and equity is a strategic imperative for all Canadian organizations that wish to remain relevant and competitive.

In other words if you do not believe as we do and follow our agenda,we will make sure that you no longer remain relevant or competitive.

Another great Canadian “non profit” designed to push the socialist agenda of conform or we will make sure you do not exist.

Where do they get thier funding?

[Canadian Visitor]

I see the problem w/the quote response continues......

***

In respect of Oladub's links to reports......note what the activist had to say on the subject..........

“The best practice would be don’t bother with urinals. Have stalls that have floor to ceiling walls and doors so that people can’t look in. A private space with locks, they do their business, and come out to wash their hands and it’s no big deal,” said Bach.

This is more or less what I'm advocatingIn respect of how the washroom entrance is organized, most major public washrooms [[malls, arenas, no longer have doors in Canada, then have an open entrance that goes around a corner)

An example below is from alamy.com [[stock image) of a Toronto mall washroom.

https://www.alamy.com/entrance-to-a-...e66388602.html

I really don't get the safety concerns, as if a man dressed as a man can't just walk into a woman's washroom today or vice versa. There's no guard at the door [[in most buildings).

As with the one-time custom of having men and women have different entrances to bars and separate sitting areas, and boys and girls having separate entrances to schools, the times have changed.

I'm by not means an ideologue about this; the status quo doesn't affect me any; but neither does changing it.

[Canadian Visitor]

As to 'sexual depravity' I have my own preferences, as we all do; but I would reserve the word depravity as with criminality to refer to non-consensual sex; or that involving legal minors for said purposes.

After that....what you're into with another consenting adult is really none of my business.

In the context of a restroom, kindly allow the space to be used for its intended purpose and keep things hygienic [[and legal); after that, shrug.

But lets be clear, as someone who spent sometime as a cinema usher back in my college days; single-sex washrooms, used more or less as intended, are often far less than pristine. They are also often used for sexual purposes; though not as often as some fear; but more often than the naive know.

But hell, never mind the washroom....LOL

I caught more than one amorous couple when locking up at night, right in the cinema........

[Canadian Visitor]

I'm curious about some here feel about other, arguably related changes, which I'm assuming are also present in the U.S. [[its been a couple of years since my last visit, and I confess to not paying close attention for them either..)

Breastfeeding.

In Canada, increasingly occurs in public, on park benches, in restaurants [[at the table) etc etc.

To be clear, its not happening everywhere all the time, or anything close, but its certainly not particularly hidden.

Most women are somewhat discrete, but some not so much.

Breastfeeding rooms are increasingly standard in most large Canadian malls as well.

Babychange stations are now ubiquitous in men's and women's washrooms; and often outside any stalled area; though may sometimes be found in the accessible stall.

Its just part of a shift in culture from everything is private/dirty/hidden to more of a shrug, its part of life, getting on with it.

[Zacha341]

I thought I was clear re. sexual depravity as applied to children in my last post. And, non-consensual behaviors/ action upon whoever where it could occur.

That reserve, more to the point those actions still leave us with quite a bit to question.

Sexual preference is a separate issue. Your business.

As to 'sexual depravity' I have my own preferences, as we all do; but I would reserve the word depravity as with criminality to refer to non-consensual sex; or that involving legal minors for said purposes.

[Zacha341]

With respect, I do not view the support of open-bathrooms as merely the happy shrugging off of more stodgy-old-remnants of victorian views.

No. To argue from that position is a straw man set up. And I've noticed this form or argument is often used in this context.

The 'getting on with it' option ain't working out so well as we see women of disparate groups uniting to push back as per the early article of this thread.

Again, I don't see broad or specific evidence per the breaking down of socialization/ increasing psychosis etc. that inappropriate sexual trespass could NOT impact children in these new facilities.

Its just part of a shift in culture from everything is private/dirty/hidden to more of a shrug, its part of life, getting on with it.

[Canadian Visitor]

The 'getting on with it' option ain't working out so well as we see women of disparate groups uniting to push back as per the early links of this thread.

Doubtless there are some who oppose this change; but its well underway here in Ontario and I have yet to hear of a protest or a large number of objections........

[[at this point the changes here are entirely voluntary, there are no code requirements....yet)

Again, I don't see broad or specific evidence per the breaking down of socialization/ increasing psychosis etc. that inappropriate sexual trespass could NOT impact children in these new facilities.

I just don't see any evidence of increased risk.

You and I would entirely agree that children should not be sexually trespassed.

I'm simply suggesting I see no evidence that changing the way washrooms are designed/operated will have any negative effect in this regard.

You realize its not merely Canada where this is increasingly common, its been a thing in Europe for awhile.

There is no evidence, so far as I'm aware of increasing rates of child sexual assault.

As such I find the argument problematic.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Ah yes, Europe!

Ok. If you don't see the risk, you don't/ wont.

As for me and mine, where we can, we WILL avoid.

[Meddle]

Nobody has answered the question in post 21.

[Johnnny5]

Nobody has answered the question in post 21.

Your post reinforces the fact that one's sex may not always correspond with their physical appearance. That said, how masculine/feminine someone appears should have nothing to do with what restroom they should be using.

I had some old Polish great-aunts that if they were not wearing dresses and babushkas you would have sworn that they were 75 year old fat men [[And many still would have questioned it when they were wearing them) What restroom should they have been using?

[Zacha341]

Looking more closely at the new disparity in sports when transgenders compete with girls/ women:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...ral-complaint/

Girls say Connecticut’s transgender athlete policy violates Title IX, file federal complaint

From article:

The athletes who filed the complaint include Selina Soule, a junior at Glastonbury High who has been vocal about her thoughts on competing against transgender athletes, and two others whose names and schools were not disclosed for fear of retaliation.

“The girls repeatedly emphasize they have friends who are transgender; they have nothing against these individuals as individuals," said Holcomb, the attorney. "They just want fairness in sports, and biology is what matters in the sporting context, not a person’s identity.”