UK passing staunch gender bathroom law

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Maybe, because, on the whole, women are more comfortable with that arrangement. If that is the case, should that not be respected?

Do you care about what women are comfortable with in any other context?

Locker rooms?

[Nealithi]

Stupid question maybe, but why do we need to have our bathrooms segregated by sex anyway? I know I personally prefer it, but that's just because the line to the men's room is usually shorter and if all bathrooms were unisex if would mean that all bathroom wait times would be longer. Is it to "protect women"? Maybe, but honestly I think creepy guys who would commit crimes against women in bathrooms aren't all that deterred from it considering guys who do that typically have a mental problem that isn't rational like say theft, and thus will always exist. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I wish a crack at this answer as I see it.
First there are the purists. Those that think if we allow both genders the same place without a sharp eye on them there will be instant sex. The least they can do is cut that in public.

Next function over form these days. A larger men's room will have urinals that a women's room will have no use for. But would prefer extra stalls. And before we say remove the urinals men can go in a commode. After cleaning up after my father in the bathroom. I think women would prefer they have a different target range.

Third I think comes to the idea that all men are perverts. Five thirty plus year old men with dicks out and in comes a nine year old girl. Many fear for that girl. I would fear for one bad comment from said girl. I have met too many people that would pull the rape or obscenity card just to ruin someone for their own amusement. So let's make that sex offender bit a little less easy either way.

Fourth is related to number three and why I say three bathrooms not two. Dad has a small daughter and she needs to go. There are instances of finger pointing and assumptions about a grown man with a small child. Especially a female child. As in local women call the police and try to take the child from the man when he is her father and doing his duty as a parent. So a third option lowers those particular instances.

[Mickey_Rat15]

Maybe, because, on the whole, women are more comfortable with that arrangement. If that is the case, should that not be respected?

Do you care about what women are comfortable with in any other context?

Don't want to answer that question, I see.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I could say the same of you.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Maybe, because, on the whole, women are more comfortable with that arrangement. If that is the case, should that not be respected?

I'm sorry, but back to this.

...wut?

[Thebestoftherest]

Maybe, because, on the whole, women are more comfortable with that arrangement. If that is the case, should that not be respected?

I'm sorry, but back to this.

...wut?

Can we atleast to make sure they even care about it?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Maybe, because, on the whole, women are more comfortable with that arrangement. If that is the case, should that not be respected?

I'm sorry, but back to this.

...wut?

Can we atleast to make sure they even care about it?

I just think the framing of the question is ridiculous. Why don't we ask what half of the entire population of any measurable geographical social region thinks on a partisan issue? Partisan issues are inherently controversial, by definition practically. The demographic in question is so vastly broad that it makes marginal difference as to the justice of the matter when using female demographics as a control factor.

[Mickey_Rat15]

I could say the same of you.

You made an ad hominem deflection from the question. Why should one give credence to a fallacious tactic?

[Mickey_Rat15]

Maybe, because, on the whole, women are more comfortable with that arrangement. If that is the case, should that not be respected?

I'm sorry, but back to this.

...wut?

Can we atleast to make sure they even care about it?

I just think the framing of the question is ridiculous. Why don't we ask what half of the entire population of any measurable geographical social region thinks on a partisan issue? Partisan issues are inherently controversial, by definition practically. The demographic in question is so vastly broad that it makes marginal difference as to the justice of the matter when using female demographics as a control factor.

Maybe there are good reasons for certain spaces and institutions to be segregrated by sex and maybe women have the most to lose by the elimination of such spaces and institutions. It would seem that the opinions of around half the population on this issue should be weighed against the opinions of a tiny minority.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Maybe, because, on the whole, women are more comfortable with that arrangement. If that is the case, should that not be respected?

I'm sorry, but back to this.

...wut?

Can we atleast to make sure they even care about it?

I just think the framing of the question is ridiculous. Why don't we ask what half of the entire population of any measurable geographical social region thinks on a partisan issue? Partisan issues are inherently controversial, by definition practically. The demographic in question is so vastly broad that it makes marginal difference as to the justice of the matter when using female demographics as a control factor.

Maybe there are good reasons for certain spaces and institutions to be segregrated by sex and maybe women have the most to lose by the elimination of such spaces and institutions. It would seem that the opinions of around half the population on this issue should be weighed against the opinions of a tiny minority.

Go ahead and take a poll, is all I'm saying.