Given that I've seen women use the men's multi-person restroom because the line for the women's was too long, I believe your assessment of "any woman" is incorrect.
Apparently what this is really about is allowing transgendered people to use the "correct" bathroom according to their self/identified "gender". Which except to those with extremely limited worldviews/imaginations, is really a whole different ball of wax than "gender neutrality" in the abstract.
), but then I can't say I'm a fan of those either. I mean, most men would all but freak out if some guy turned away from a urinal with his "junk" hanging all out of his pants and whatnot too, even if it was just 'cos he wasn't wearing underwear and was in the process of tucking himself back in (and seriously, how often have you seen anything like that happen?)
Emergencies, I can understand, but if mere impatience and "time crunch" are enough to override it, their perception of the "lack of safety" can't be terribly strong...
I don't think either of those applies when you're at a concert and it's between sets...
If the bathrooms have signs that say "men" and "women" the danger is exactly the same. Those signs aren't/weren't stopping anyone with ill intent.
So how come all these (self) righteous advocates of women's safety aren't demanding sex-segregated elevators in public buildings? Seriously, I'll bet there have been way more sexual assaults in those than in public lavatories anywhere (let alone businesses where, again - seriously speaking - the bathrooms aren't exactly in out-of-the-way, hidden spots where no one is going to hear someone shout in the (extremely) unlikely event they have reason to), and it's not as though a sign saying "Women" is going to keep a sex-offender-on-the-prowl out of the effing women's room to begin with...
It might not be a cheap or convenient option, but in any building with more than one elevator, it's an option. As would be a plexiglas barrier down the middle of one, if there is only space for one... And considering that there have in fact been many documented cases of sexual assaults in elevators (fortunately not a "huge" number, but I'm pretty comfortable saying more than in public bathrooms), it would be a more rational response to an actual problem.
Nothing at all.
Well shit, saying "this is embarrassing" doesn't negate women's concerns. Family bathrooms have locks and only have room for 1 family who would then lock the door.
Is this really what you bring to this table? That's embarassing.
You're accusing us of rationalizing it from a subjective male viewpoint, and it appears to me you're rationalizing from a subjective female viewpoint.
All I can, and the only thing further in this sub-thread I will, say is go back and read posts 35-37 and 40, and then tell me you're being "objective" in any rational sense of that word...
Not merely a subjective one, an irrational one. I have no issue with taking measure's to ensure any vulnerable group's safety, but when those measures work to someone else's detriment, there should be at least some sort of factually rational basis for them.
I thought objectivity was viewing it from an outside perspective. Regardless, I continue to disagree with your assessment.
Facebook
Twitter