556
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
556 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19136 readers
4013 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They have already created gender neutral restrooms, according to the article these windows are not in those.
There's 2 stalls visible in the picture. The walls are not floor to ceiling, the doors have larger gaps above and though it isn't visible, I expect also a gap below. It's not clear if there are vertical visibility slits on the sides of the doors. But they're clearly just stalls really.
But it doesn't really matter how the stalls are, the way that we know that this is targeted spite and bullying, is that windows are being cut only in a specific subset of the restrooms. They're trying to shame and intimidate the kids that are in those restrooms.
Possible.
It's also possible that the stalls do provide an adequate degree of privacy, coming very close to the floor, and sufficiently high enough to prevent people from seeing inside. They certainly don't look like the stalls my school used.
Frankly, if their intention is to shame and intimidated, I'm rather surprised they are going to this much effort, when they could just not do anything at all.
Do we know that the other, gender-neutral restrooms are similarly communal? Is it possible that they are single-user facilities with sinks, and need only appropriate signage to make them inclusive?
I've stopped giving USA republicans the benefit of doubt years ago, Trump's first year in office was enough to convince me. I've accepted that they are comically evil and that they have no redeeming qualities. So if I see something that is comically evil, then I'm not going to invent possibilities of why it might not be as bad, because in my experience it will turn out that after a little digging, it's actually worse.
Also the administration was given the opportunity to justify or explain their actions by the reporter, and they chose not to, most likely not because they didn't want to, but because they couldn't do so in a matter that did not make them appear like spiteful bigots. There's no point in inventing possible defenses for them if they could not provide them themselves.
Republicans don't have five types of bathrooms. Republicans have two. That alone should tell you that the Republicans aren't actually in control here.
What is actually happening is that the Republicans are trying to get rid of the "gender inclusive" restroom, and revert it to boys only. They don't want 5 kinds of restrooms. They want two.
After reading some more, it turns out the Republicans are claiming the area outside the stalls is a "changing area", and the law prohibits coed changing areas. Be "inclusive" of more than one gender in a "changing area", and you violate the law.
Changing areas don't have public-facing windows. Areas with public-facing windows aren't changing areas. Without the window, the Republicans get to make it a boys-only room. With the window to the sinks - not the toilets - it is not a changing area, and the Republican argument fails.
Seems reasonable and likely, but that's not what people here want they want an enemy they can pretend is pure evil so they can feel good about themselves
This is really just a messaging problem. If you asked the students and parents if they should renovate a communal bathroom into multiple, single-user unisex bathrooms, they would likely receive enthusiastic support. If you then asked if it were reasonable to use communal hand washing facilities in a public area outside the restrooms instead of a sink in every unisex bathroom, you'd still get plenty of support.
It's only when you start talking about "windows" that shit goes sideways. They could completely tear out the wall, and this plan would be fine: they would be single-user restrooms along a hallway, with communal sinks also in that hallway.
My town hosts public festivals all the time. They bring in a dozen portapotties and a hand washing station. Nobody seems to have a problem washing their hands in sight of the general public. That's basically what is happening here.
As someone so eloquently said; maybe one if my pigs just shat a gold nugget (gotta check that out, right)
Read up on it some more, from a less biased source. The Republicans want this to be a boy's room. The law prohibits coed changing rooms. Be "inclusive" of multiple genders in a room that qualifies as a "changing room", and you violate the law.
Changing rooms don't have windows. Put in a window, and the area can't be considered a changing room. Since it isn't a changing room, the Republican argument fails, and they don't get to get rid of the gender inclusive restroom entirely. You still have privacy while you are using the toilet. You don't have privacy while you are washing your hands.
So in this case, you might want to figure out where your pig has been eating and stake a claim.