California SB-1194 permits local gov't to mandate all public toilet facilities to be gender neutral

[bill1952]

Back in 90s when ADA proposed to the family restroom, the shopping mall reps warned of them becoming hangouts for sex workers. I don't know if that became so and besides, malls have much bigger threats now.

I love the idea for theatres, where there is never enough restrooms but especially for women. Lines at women's rooms during intermission are many times longer than men's. A result of old white men writing the codes and standards. A Wednesday matinee is 90%+ old women.

I welcome the changes. That it disturbs the LGBTQ phobics is just a bonus.

 

[mtlogcabin]

That it disturbs the LGBTQ phobics is just a bonus.

Phobic Really? I have no problems with the LGBQ since they are not insisting on being able to use a restroom that is contrary to their sex. It is the "T" people FKA cross dressers and a vast majority of them actually male that I have issues with wanting to use a woman's restroom. Call me old fashion but I believe there is a place for everything and everything should be in it's place especially when it comes to male and female restrooms.

Since when is adhering to the facts about biology and not going along with what is a self perceived believe by many and now proselytizing others and children into believing this BS is true.

Birthing people, really are you swallowing that crap that a man can have a baby.
Assigned the wrong gender at birth is another BS statement. Your birth certificate does not assign you a gender it identifies what sex you are when you are born. Male or Female in 99.95% of births without ambiguity. That leaves a very small percentage (0.05%) of those born with Intersex characteristics. For the few who are truly born this way there is a lot that they go through in life trying to fit in with society, family and friends when others learn the truth about them.

 

[bill1952]

I find no threat from trans gender men and women, and see no reason to discriminate. Life is too short to not live and let live.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I don't find a threat from them either and I have a certain amount of tolerance for them.
However, Tolerance does not mean acceptance.

Tolerance concedes that there are people who think, feel or act a certain way. That they exist is an unavoidable reality and we must live with it (though not necessarily without challenging their views).
Acceptance is actually embracing those ways of thinking, feeling or acting. It is the point where one believes that they are good and/or should be imitated.

That is what I see that so many younger people are doing. Falling for a self perceived belief that will reward them with attention good or bad.

 

[Yikes]

Back in 90s when ADA proposed to the family restroom, the shopping mall reps warned of them becoming hangouts for sex workers. I don't know if that became so and besides, malls have much bigger threats now.
*
I welcome the changes. That it disturbs the LGBTQ phobics is just a bonus.

Bill, not sure if you're responding to my post, but if you are, I reiterate my issue is not that LGBTQ disturbs me as an architect. And my restroom design issue is not even specifically about a person who culturally presents as opposite their biological sex using the restroom of the gender they're presenting. (That's a topic for something other than a code forum.)

My issue is firstly that someone needs to consider other vulnerable populations (I'm specifically thinking of a homeless women's shelter that I worked on) who view gender neutral restrooms as an unsafe place, based on their own previous history of sexual assault while trying to obtain sanitary relief, and SB-1194 doesn't consider that. This was not a few individuals, this was sadly a common story. Multi-user gender-specific (women's only) restrooms have at least created what they perceive to be a safer space from predatory males when they are in a vulnerable position. If they see someone who appears to be a male going into a multi-user women's restroom, they will know to be on guard and avoid it until the man leaves in order to feel safe. If you are saying that those homeless women are "T" phobic, and it's a bonus in your eyes if they get more disturbed, then I don't know how that approach is part of the solution.

My secondary issue is the additional resources (bigger restroom areas, more materials, etc.) impacting design, when just one single-user gender neutral restroom could solve all problems for all concerned.

Reiterating, I'm not opposed to single user "family" restrooms. But yes, in metropolitan Los Angeles, single user restrooms have become places for drug use, sex workers, and even just homeless people locking themselves in for a 3 hour nap. If your community is not dealing with the kind of restroom-based criminal activity that we are seeing in Los Angeles, then count yourselves blessed for now.

On the plus side, if there's just one single-user restroom (gender-neutral of otherwise), it becomes easier to manage just one room. But if a new law locally mandates all multi-user restrooms to have 100% individual toilet rooms instead of stalls, those problems will get much, much worse.

 

[bill1952]

Yikes - not responding to your post in this case. You make good points. I'm confident design will solve these problems for all interests.

 

[tmurray]

I think it is interesting that the state is pushing this down to the local governments to make this decision for their communities.

 

[bill1952]

Are they requiring them to actively make a choice, or allowing them to adopt the requirement for individual restrooms? Seemed like they could do nothing, and nothing changes, or be pro-active and adopt the requirement.

 

[ICE]

I think it is interesting that the state is pushing this down to the local governments to make this decision for their communities.

The decision to follow the new age layout for restrooms should be made by the owner of the property. Government has no stake in this. The individuals that own and operate real estate meant for public consumption should not be forced to accommodate the whims of the public.

 

[tmurray]

The decision to follow the new age layout for restrooms should be made by the owner of the property. Government has no stake in this. The individuals that own and operate real estate meant for public consumption should not be forced to accommodate the whims of the public.

I guess that is the question. If someone runs a business serving the public and the public demands something the business declines to provide, how long will they stay in business? Could the will of the public be used to allow business with interests incompatible with society to cease to be through refusing to use their services?

On the other side, how is this not the will of the public? It is being passed at the state level by democratically elected officials and again at local government levels by other democratically elected officials. Certainly if the constituents these people represent do not believe in the legislation, it will not be passed as they will not be re-elected.

Are they requiring them to actively make a choice, or allowing them to adopt the requirement for individual restrooms? Seemed like they could do nothing, and nothing changes, or be pro-active and adopt the requirement.

I think it is the most political thing to do. Pass a law that allows someone else to do something so you can point the finger at them for people who are upset that something was changed and those upset that nothing has changed.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Is it the whims of the public, or a small but very vocal minority?

 

[ICE]

I guess that is the question. If someone runs a business serving the public and the public demands something the business declines to provide, how long will they stay in business? Could the will of the public be used to allow business with interests incompatible with society to cease to be through refusing to use their services?

Well most certainly the public can set in motion the demise of a business. Block Buster Video comes to mind. But that was the "public" at large. The public that demands recognition in a new restroom law is less than one half of one percent of the public at large. When that bit of information is included in the discussion there is a sense of entering the Twilight Zone. What's next, shade structures for redheads?

Every discussion, news story, and printed article should have to start with a disclaimer that says, "This is not for you".

 

[ICE]

On the other side, how is this not the will of the public? It is being passed at the state level by democratically elected officials and again at local government levels by other democratically elected officials. Certainly if the constituents these people represent do not believe in the legislation, it will not be passed as they will not be re-elected.

Just a guess on my part....the overwhelming majority of the public scrunches their face up when saying the word transgender. They don't think that it is normal behavior. They would cry if it happened to a loved one.....and then probably throw up.

So who are the politicians catering to other than the media titans and celebrities?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Certainly if the constituents these people represent do not believe in the legislation, it will not be passed as they will not be re-elected.

Depends on if the legislation is local, state or federal. Building codes are a good example of legislation that the local governing bodies elected officials have no say in because it is adopted at the state level and the laws of the state do not permit local government to amend what the state has adopted.

Some states do allow amendments to the code for local jurisdiction as long as the local amendment is more restrictive then what the state adopted.

Federal is even worse because our elected officials who are suppose to represent us enact vaguely worded laws usually in a bill that contains multiple unrelated subjects/items and then turn them over to un-elected agency employees to write the "rules" that are used to enforce the vaguely worded laws.

The OP will not negatively affect the majority residents of CA because they will not directly see what the true financial cost are to meet the new requirements so they basically have no skin in the game and therefore do not care and will continue to re-elect the same people into office.

 

[bill1952]

I believe a much greater percentage of the population than just the transgender members support this and other than a few on the forum don't know many - other than some here - that "scrunches their face up when saying the word transgender". Most people I know are open and affirming of LGBTQ people, .

What laws were not once public whims? ADA certainly was. Many non-discrimination and hate-crime laws? Building and fire codes? Zoning?