• thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    86
    ·
    3 months ago

    Fyi, the reason it’s noteworthy is he put them in boys toilets and boys don’t menstruate. Which is weird

    • flames5123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Imagine boys picking up tampons for their girlfriends or just good friends because they couldn’t.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      3 months ago

      Transmasc students who use boys toilets still menstruate unless on some serious hormone therapy.

      Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago

        The reality of this is that it would end up like divisions in sports and other competitive activities and we’d have a women’s restroom and a unisex restroom. Because some women want to avoid the opposite sex and society will broadly respect that because they are women.

        If schools did switch to all unisex toilets, then we’d just be a complaint and a lawsuit away from official Title IX policy being that girls toilets are mandatory regardless of whether or not there are unisex toilets but boys toilets are not if unisex toilets are available and to do otherwise is sex discrimination because of some arbitrary excuse containing the word “historic” to explain why discrimination is not discrimination so long as it benefits girls.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Instead of stalls put proper walls and doors on the toilets like you have at home. Boom. Unisex toilets with no issues.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            This is seriously the way. Once you’ve been to a country that does this (Sweden in my case) and experienced it yourself, the “normal” way (USA in my case) only looks more stupid than it did before.

            But I’m sure it would cost more than zero additional dollars to do, so it would get rejected while still on the drawing board. Some human comfort, dignity, and privacy is NOT going to boost our earnings this quarter.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It’s fantastic.

            Work has a selection of “unisex” bathrooms and I use them all the time, much preferred over the mens room.

            So I’m personally benefitting from this brand of “wokeness”, even if I’m not trans.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It’s fantastic.

              That dramatically reduces capacity though. Which is fine if you don’t need that capacity, and/or aren’t trying to retrofit existing facilities without spending a fortune.

              There’s a pizza place nearish me that has two single occupancy unisex restrooms, for example. But before they moved to unisex they had two single occupancy gendered restrooms, so they were just changing signage rather than having to do any kind of construction to make it happen. As opposed to say a local theater that has 6 toilets, 4 urinals and 4 sinks in one restroom and not remotely enough space to have 6 separate rooms with a toilet and sink each in the same space - but they expected to need higher throughput in a smaller footprint (less so now, but they were pretty busy pre-COVID).

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Other than capacity, space, and expense retrofitting issues. Single occupancy toilets take up more room which means being able to handle less people in the same space and space is not an unlimited resource in most building designs. Especially if you are talking about doing it to an existing building.

            My comment about Title IX (a law that says that any educational program receiving federal funding may not discriminate with respect to sex) is specifically in reference to them taking exactly that stance with sports - if a girl wants to play a sport that has a boys team but not a girls then a school is required to let her try out for the boys team (and cannot consider her sex and gender as far as whether she makes the team) under Title IX policy, but if a boy wants to play a sport that has a girls team but not a boys team, he’s SOL under current Title IX policy. To do otherwise is sex discrimination. Equity.

      • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        35
        ·
        3 months ago

        That is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people. Making all toilets wheelchair accessible would probably help more.

        Problem is, women hate it when men use their toilets

        • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          3 months ago

          Bro have you ever been in a ladies room? Consistently more nasty then the men’s, nobody’s trying to be in there. You just need a Boogeyman

          • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            26
            ·
            3 months ago

            Even if that’s the case, women are super sexist about men in this way. They just hate the idea if sharing toilets with men

            • FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              3 months ago

              No, they don’t. You’re just spouting that with no data or evidence. Most women I’ve heard speak about this care more about trans people’s safety and comfort than what kind of genitalia is one stall over.

                • FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  My friends, family, and co-workers do echo lots of common sense, compassionate viewpoints that I agree with. They also tell me when I’m acting like an idiot, or spouting shit that I have no idea about. I sincerely hope that you have some people like that in your life, too.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 months ago

          Wow your post history is weird.

          Cis this cis that, election fraud, echo chamber, echo chamber, echo chamber! ( and it goes on )

        • Somethingcheezie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Have you gone to a public event. Women’s toilets have long lines and men’s have short to no lines. Makes me think men wouldn’t like women sharing their toilets either.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Making all toilets wheelchair accessible would probably help more.

          I’m pretty sure that’s already the case. So now that that problem is solved we can move on to figuring out the difficult challenge of making bathrooms unisex. Do we have the time and budget to remove the sign from the door and go about our day?

    • Xanis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 months ago

      This guy also doesn’t support free lunches for kids in school. Says the majority don’t need them, so we shouldn’t provide them at all.

      I gotta say, you sure have some terrible takes, my friend.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        When my kids were in elementary school so many of the students were on free or reduced price lunch they just decided to give every kid a free breakfast and lunch. And even though I could afford the lunches it was great because I didn’t have to get them breakfast before school and I didn’t have to make sure their lunch money account was topped up.

        So even if you don’t need them they’re a really nice thing to have, IMHO.

      • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        3 months ago

        Been researching me. Dishonestly representing my opinions. Poor.

        I am totally in favour of free school lunches for those in need.

        Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?

        • Xanis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’ll assume I misread, it happens. However, kids are kids. Let them eat. How much their parents make doesn’t matter.

            • Xanis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              The kids don’t have the money. Moreover, if anyone’s taxes go towards a service, they should be able to benefit from that service. Not benefit more, just benefit period.

              • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Couldn’t disagree more. I provide for my kids. Kids dot have cars, but I drive mine around in my car because they are my kids.

                Free Ubers for all children?

                I do not want to see poor people working to provide free services for rich people.

                I am astounded that is a controversial take.

                And I am speaking as a functionally rich person.

                • Xanis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Everything we use is due to taxes. Honestly, as a functionally rich person you should be aware of that. I’m actually of the opinion that anyone in need should be able to utilize services that my tax dollars help fund.

                  This is how society works.

                  The fundamental difference is who is taxed more. A poor family’s children should have access to food. A rich family’s children should have access to food. Your children should have access to food my taxes help pay for, it’s super easy, I’m surprised this is a controversial take.

                  But nah, you right. If your kiddos ever need an ambulance, fuck em. Swipe that credit card, I don’t want to be paying to help as a “functionally poor person”. /s But hey, you said it first.

                  • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Ok, so we disagree on the point of taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people, which I find odd. It’s based on need. Using state resources to proved services for which there is no need is wasteful

                    My children don’t need your resources when it comes to their daily needs. Yes, I am in favour of socialized healthcare (and schools, police, etc), why even bring that up?

                    If you are in favour of free healthcare, let’s give everyone free cars?

        • randomwords@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes, I support providing free school lunches to both rich and poor students. It removes the stigma of receiving free or reduced cost lunches.

        • webadict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          Surprisingly, children are children, regardless of being rich and poor, and they all get hungry.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          It works like uniforms. If everyone gets the same lunch, kids can’t manufacture conflict out of it. Stealing lunch money has always been a thing.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 months ago

          Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?

          Why not? Their parents are payin’ for it, and it saves a whole mess of useless bureaucrats between hungry kids and food.

              • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                This is where you and I will disagree. I don’t want poor people paying for shit I can get myself without issue. That seems very unfair.

                Save that money for a useful social program that helps poorer people

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  It costs money to operate registers, take payments, etc as well.

                  Means testing is terrible and why waste time and money rather than cooking the kids some food and having them focus on learning?

                  Not every aspect of society should be about running some type of business. The whole thing is a distraction from what school ought to be about.

                  The same goes for medicine, btw. The means testing and insurance gating there is even worse. Take the cash registers and insurance middlemen out of it and suddenly doctors can worry about the patient care instead of payments.

                  • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Perhaps. But what if it worked out vastly cheaper to target free lunches. Let’s say a billion was freed up for some important social program to help poor people. Would you agree with me if that were the case?

          • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s what I’m saying.

            Or do you mean rich peoples kids go to schools that provide lunches because the schools are expensive? If that is the case, that’s wrong. Half my kids friends families live in over £1million houses, but get free lunches at a state school

        • ellabee@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          yeah, I do.

          I was a kid on free and reduced lunch. there’s stigma around being poor enough to need it, and I was bullied for it. my home life was sufficiently dysfunctional that it could be the only food I ate that day, and there were still times I’d rather be hungry than bullied.

          so in the interest of removing something kids can be bullied over, sure. tax the rich more, and let a relatively tiny bit of our taxes buy every child at least one meal a day.

          -childless taxpayer

          • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Let’s better use taxes to provide the service you clearly needed rather than just lunch. I can afford to buy my kids lunch. I don’t need poorer people’s taxes wasted buying my kids food.

            I was also bullied at school. The removal of only one factor would have made no difference. I was bullied because they wanted to bully me.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Oh, so not only do you not want people who need them to have access to menstrual supplies, you also seem to think bigotry against trans people is an acceptable reason why.

    • webadict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Who actually gives a shit? Not the least because transboys do exist, but also because having people reduce the stigma around feminine hygiene products is a net benefit to everyone.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      Actually, he didn’t explicitly do so.

      “The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school distric”

      That sounds like a perfectly reasonable phrasing.

      There is no particularly pro-trans wording or explicitly declaring mens rooms to also have it, the phrasing is supremely neutral.

    • demizerone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Back at my school, we use to have fight club in the bathroom. If we had tampons it would have saved a bunch of TP to stop bloody noses. We weren’t so forward thinking back in the 90s sadly.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s not weird if you have non-binary kids using the boys restroom.

      Here’s the Republican logic:

      Trans kids shouldn’t exist.
      Trans kids shouldn’t be allowed to transition.
      Trans kids shouldn’t be allowed puberty blockers.
      Trans kids shouldn’t have access to basic health products necessary for human dignity.

      Republicans want to do everything they can to marginalize trans kids, make life difficult for trans kids and, ultimately, make it even more likely that trans kids will try to kill themselves than they already do, and that rate is damned high enough as it is.

      Let me put it to you another way maybe you can understand…

      Are you going to tell Buck Angel he’s not allowed to have tampons in the men’s room? 'Cause I have news for you…

    • doccod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m not deleting your comment just so you see how many people disagree with you and keep reading the replies. It’s 2024, not the nineteenth century, and transphobia and misoginia only makes you and everyone else worse off.

      • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Am I supposed to take this as a kindness or some kind of threat? I couldn’t give a rats fart what any of the loonies on this site think anything I say

        I came here thinking it may me a more sane alter to Reddit, holy shit I was wrong.

        This is like 2016 tumbler, but you all think then world is like this