this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1154 points (94.8% liked)

politics

18651 readers
4045 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A district judge in Wisconsin has sided with an 11-year-old trans girl over her use of the girls’ toilets and temporarily blocked school officials from preventing her access.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 140 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Good lord they are only 11 years old. Who cares what bathroom they use.

[–] [email protected] 106 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Make them all unisex. If it's a large facility with a bunch of stalls or a small facility for only one person, make them all unisex.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

I went to a club with only one, huge, unisex bathroom once. It was.. like any other bathroom. Seeing people of the opposite gender wasn't really a concern anyways.

Since it was a rather yuge bathroom for a yuge club, if there was any shenanigans going on there would've been plenty of witnesses to call it out.

There was even one guy who went piss at a urinal, and started to leave without washing his hands. All the other guys started shouting at the guy to was his hands lol.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/hy_fElYFzI8

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

You could go take a shit together on your first date

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes. And get rid of that creepy door gap while you're at it

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I hate those gaps

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It’s only America that has pervert friendly toilet gaps.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

To be fair, there is safety in numbers and consequently I also see a benefit to combining them. I'm a dude, and I would rather walk down a busy pedestrian mall than a sketchy half-empty street or an urban trail on a moonless night.

Same thing with bathrooms. I imagine women feel better in a bathroom where other women and other people are present and aware, vs a nearly empty bathroom where a creep could walk in and isolate them at any moment. I've been to places with large unisex bathrooms (hot springs, spas, etc.) and there's enough people in there that no one is gonna try anything stupid/inappropriate without being immediately noticed. Bathroom troublemakers are a small subset of the universally large group of people who have to use the restroom anyway.

I only support gender-segregated bathrooms because I don't want a bunch of chicks clogging up the mensroom with their slow pissing/shitting/bloody paper towels on the floor. :D I am unreasonable and self-centered, but anyone who has ever been to a concert knows which line is longer.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 year ago

Pretty much only conservatives. They're actually pretty obsessed with thinking about children being raped in bathrooms.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need to separate the bathrooms by function!

Number ones on the left number twos on the right!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Now the problem with that would be that then people would only use the pissing bathroom, because who would want to poop with other people? I sure wouldn't.