here is an example. im not educated enough to know the specifics, but this would bar single occupancy gender neutral bathrooms in most cases except when the building is too small it seems.
the fact that it is going to legislation at all is of course absurd and obviously just anti-woke posturing. if the government cares about “dignity and privacy” they’d ban communal bathrooms in the first place.
Pretty sure it doesn’t ban single occupancy bathrooms. It bans multi-occupancy gender neutral bathrooms - like bathrooms with stalls that share the same set of sinks. Don’t get me wrong it’s still dumb, but not as bad as you are thinking.
okay fair thanks for the correction. i think we can still both agree that it’s obviously just meant to antagonize people over a non-issue in order to maintain a culture war tho 👍
edit: okay im reading through again and i think i was right? and they are banning both? i welcome the insight of others in interpreting this bc now im confused as hell
As part of the regulations, contractors can construct “self-contained universal toilets” which the government said may only be constructed if a “lack of space reasonably precludes provision of single-sex toilet accommodation.”
Oof okay I guess it’s worse than I thought. I swear they had some provision for non-binary people, but i guess they just hate queer people.
I don’t agree with dismissing everything as a distraction. I think some conservatives legitimately do care about this stuff. I also don’t think people would suddenly turn anti-capitalist from just not having distractions. People are generally dumb as shit, and most the alternatives to capitalism are also shit because again people are dumb. If you are going to replace capitalism you need to come up with something that’s both actually better, explainable to the public, and overcome the baggage of all the experiments that failed.
agree, but i don’t think i said anything about capitalism?
if anything this is conservatives continuing to use the existence of trans people, less than 1% of the population, as leverage to fearmonger themselves into public approval. i wouldn’t call it a distraction as much as plain vanilla fascist oppression.
Normally when people talk about maintaining culture war they are talking about it being a distraction from the problems created by rich people and capitalism. It’s the same people who say “no war but class war”. Same guys who call conservatives fascists.
Will British Airways be required to have separate toilets for men and women on their planes? If not, what is the reason for the inconsistency? If it’s allowed on an airplane, why is it not allowed on the ground?
the reason for the proposed legislation is literally just to capitalize off fearmongering. conservatives have successfully built a fucked up narrative that gender neutral=trans and that trans=rape, and so now they can pass bogus legislation that just inconveniences people in order to maintain power.
Trauma of cross traffic? Don’t you pass the opposite gender in the hallway to both gendered bathrooms anyways? Does the presence of a sink really make it suddenly traumatizing to be within view of the opposite gender?
I think it’s a psychological thing. At my job we have lockers for all the workers in the main bathroom. I don’t see it going neutral for that fact alone. But when you get into the bathroom it’s fine to relax and rip a fart or whatever. I’m assuming it’s the same in the women’s room. Or so my sisters tell me.
It’s a case of efficiency. Stalls and urinals take less space than single occupancy bathrooms - which translates into smaller buildings costing less money to build, maintain, heat, a lower impact on climate and also allowing a higher efficiency usage of land.
Besides, most places that have stalls also have at least one large gender neutral single occupancy bathroom with extra features such as a baby station and disability adaptations.
Unless there suddenly becomes a huge demand for gender neutral bathrooms, I don’t see why that additional bathroom wouldn’t be sufficient to serve people who can’t use the regular bathrooms.
I don’t quite understand. Why is the third point necessary if the second point exists?
And what do gender neutral toilets looks like in the UK currently if having self-contained toilets isn’t it? I’ve never seen gender neutral toilets with American door gaps.
I’m not sure on the third one either tbh. A shared facility with a single toilet? I can only assume the Tories have been hanging out in some strange places.
I believe this is England only. Health (which I believe this will fall under) is a devolved matter and the other governments are thankfully a bit more sane.
Is anybody honestly against single occupancy gender neutral bathrooms? I always took it to be a matter of multi-occupancy bathrooms.
here is an example. im not educated enough to know the specifics, but this would bar single occupancy gender neutral bathrooms in most cases except when the building is too small it seems.
the fact that it is going to legislation at all is of course absurd and obviously just anti-woke posturing. if the government cares about “dignity and privacy” they’d ban communal bathrooms in the first place.
Pretty sure it doesn’t ban single occupancy bathrooms. It bans multi-occupancy gender neutral bathrooms - like bathrooms with stalls that share the same set of sinks. Don’t get me wrong it’s still dumb, but not as bad as you are thinking.
okay fair thanks for the correction. i think we can still both agree that it’s obviously just meant to antagonize people over a non-issue in order to maintain a culture war tho 👍
edit: okay im reading through again and i think i was right? and they are banning both? i welcome the insight of others in interpreting this bc now im confused as hell
Oof okay I guess it’s worse than I thought. I swear they had some provision for non-binary people, but i guess they just hate queer people.
I don’t agree with dismissing everything as a distraction. I think some conservatives legitimately do care about this stuff. I also don’t think people would suddenly turn anti-capitalist from just not having distractions. People are generally dumb as shit, and most the alternatives to capitalism are also shit because again people are dumb. If you are going to replace capitalism you need to come up with something that’s both actually better, explainable to the public, and overcome the baggage of all the experiments that failed.
agree, but i don’t think i said anything about capitalism?
if anything this is conservatives continuing to use the existence of trans people, less than 1% of the population, as leverage to fearmonger themselves into public approval. i wouldn’t call it a distraction as much as plain vanilla fascist oppression.
Normally when people talk about maintaining culture war they are talking about it being a distraction from the problems created by rich people and capitalism. It’s the same people who say “no war but class war”. Same guys who call conservatives fascists.
Are you telling me you aren’t an anti-capitalist?
no i definitely am an anti capitalist lol. this conversation is beyond my education level maybe.
I don’t have that much political education but I do see people on lemmy talking about this stuff.
What the ever living fuck? Why? For what good?
Will British Airways be required to have separate toilets for men and women on their planes? If not, what is the reason for the inconsistency? If it’s allowed on an airplane, why is it not allowed on the ground?
they won’t change it on airplanes obviously
the reason for the proposed legislation is literally just to capitalize off fearmongering. conservatives have successfully built a fucked up narrative that gender neutral=trans and that trans=rape, and so now they can pass bogus legislation that just inconveniences people in order to maintain power.
If I’ve learned anything from the past 8 years of politics, it’s that nothing is obvious.
Some would argue offering women a man-free bathroom is feminism, YMMV
deleted by creator
No, not really… But multi-occupancy isn’t that different. Every stall has a lock, same as out houses.
its about the efficiency of urinals versus the trauma of cross-traffic.
Trauma of cross traffic? Don’t you pass the opposite gender in the hallway to both gendered bathrooms anyways? Does the presence of a sink really make it suddenly traumatizing to be within view of the opposite gender?
I think it’s a psychological thing. At my job we have lockers for all the workers in the main bathroom. I don’t see it going neutral for that fact alone. But when you get into the bathroom it’s fine to relax and rip a fart or whatever. I’m assuming it’s the same in the women’s room. Or so my sisters tell me.
Cats and dogs living together!
Everytime this nonsense comes up I point out communal bathrooms are the problem. Maybe someday people will understand.
My church has these which is pretty funny to think about
It’s a case of efficiency. Stalls and urinals take less space than single occupancy bathrooms - which translates into smaller buildings costing less money to build, maintain, heat, a lower impact on climate and also allowing a higher efficiency usage of land.
Besides, most places that have stalls also have at least one large gender neutral single occupancy bathroom with extra features such as a baby station and disability adaptations.
Unless there suddenly becomes a huge demand for gender neutral bathrooms, I don’t see why that additional bathroom wouldn’t be sufficient to serve people who can’t use the regular bathrooms.
Someone must be, if the UK is banning them.
Well, they’re not. It’s only multi occupancy ones, which I’m not sure why they’re banning because I’ve literally never seen one anywhere.
Standard all mouth, no effort needed policy by the Tories.
Huh, I must have got the wrong impression from the angry lemmy comments that were my only source of this information.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-building-requirements-for-separate-male-and-female-toilets
The aim of the new requirements will ensure that:
separate single-sex toilets facilities are provided for men and women and/or
self-contained, private toilets are provided where space allows to ensure privacy and safety
mixed sex shared facilities are not an option, except when lack of space allows only a single toilet
I don’t quite understand. Why is the third point necessary if the second point exists?
And what do gender neutral toilets looks like in the UK currently if having self-contained toilets isn’t it? I’ve never seen gender neutral toilets with American door gaps.
I’m not sure on the third one either tbh. A shared facility with a single toilet? I can only assume the Tories have been hanging out in some strange places.
I believe this is England only. Health (which I believe this will fall under) is a devolved matter and the other governments are thankfully a bit more sane.