this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1184 points (94.8% liked)

politics

18888 readers
3988 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] 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Tbh this segregation is also stupid as well, it’s completely possible to make non-gendered bathrooms that are safe spaces. High traffic areas with to the floor stalls that are basically rooms are the best option. Low traffic areas are the issue however. But segregation is overall pretty ridiculous even for bathrooms, and implies a failure of our culture to minimize predators.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

There have to be millions of restaurants, cafes and other places that already have unisex bathrooms, and apparently that's never been a problem. Weird, huh?

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

Exactly. The Red Rocks Amphitheater in Colorado does exactly this and it makes so much sense. Also by far the nicest bathrooms I’ve ever seen at a concert venue

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

Yes, but that's not an option here, because in response to a suggestion that she use a non-gendered bathroom 'she had suffered “emotional distress and mental-health effects, including thoughts of self-harm, nightmares, embarrassment, social isolation and stigma, and lowered self-esteem”' That's copied directly from the article.

Non-gendered bathrooms would appear to be the ultimate solution here, so obvs this girl's going to be majorly traumatised every time she needs a wazz in that setup.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

She was being forced to use a gender-neutral bathroom in lieu of existing gendered bathrooms. Basically the administration was denying her her identity at a very basic level. It wasn't just about bathrooms, it was about allowing someone to identify as their own gender.

A gender-neutral bathroom is a solution without separate gendered bathrooms, not in concert with them.

It's basically saying "If you can't be one, we won't let you be the other, so you have to go to the weird people place to do your business". Kind of a fucked up thing to tell someone, much less a child.