He makes a very good solid point.
Concurrently right-o-sphere is sharing the video of the 5'9" guy who challenges college students with a hypothetical on this subject. (I just now realized 5'9" is supposed to connote tall, the whole time I was considering him short as everyone else is taller.)
BTW, those students appear to be walking to class. The guy has a cameraman with him. The interviewer and his cameraman interrupted the students as they're walking somewhere. They're busy. They're so tall and grown up and mature and well mannered I tend to forget they're, what, seventeen or eighteen. We don't see the students who brushed past too busy to stop. We don't see the ones edited for not working out well. I know what this video is supposed to be showing, and it does show airiness, but what I saw were all really sweet kids. They're open and engaging and friendly and smart. Had the interviewer attempted to sway them instead then we might see them agree that the whole thing really is rather silly.
The right is reacting as if all cases are like Bruce Jenner.
I'm supposed to say some other name.
But this small percentage of people are not like that spectacular media case. There really is physical sexual ambiguity. There really are men who live as women and always have. And women who live as men. I wonder, what have they been doing all along about public bathrooms? I know! If passing as women, then they've been doing this all along. Right? This whole thing is having this phenomena acknowledged. Is that so hard to acknowledge?
What do you want trans people to do? Disappear? Go back to having us not acknowledging their existence? That won't be possible. Because now you know.
Here's a fresh idea I haven't seen discussed anywhere. This is what you need me for because I don't see this elsewhere:
The right reacts, they write as if they'e reacting, they comment as if they're reacting, that new pervs will be manufactured for the purpose of perving by any new legislation. The legislation itself will draw out new pervs and protect them while endangering women.
Again, that is a very good point to be wary.
And then I think of the women at ballets and plays and concerts at intermission complaining about the intolerably long lines, a much bigger problem for women because their bathrooms must have stalls than for men who use urinals in their bathrooms and that goes a bit faster, theoretically unless the men are pee shy that night then the whole thing can take considerable time and who also wait when crowds go for the bathrooms. Crowd management is no small thing. The rooms sit empty when the crowds are not there. This is a consideration for concert halls and coliseums and the like. Now what happens with unisex bathrooms?
People are imagining all existing bathrooms can be switched to unisex all across the nation by law. They must all be stalls. Critically, at any given public place there will not be two unisex bathrooms as imagining all existing dual bathroom be turned unisex. They will design and build only one bathroom. Convenient for business to install plumbing for one room and not two all across the land. A tremendous advantage in savings altogether. A few more stalls, a lot less urinals. Expect them to not have enough stalls to satisfy both at peak use. Larger bathrooms. More waiting at busy places and times.
Doesn't bother me at all knowing trans ladies have been using our male bathrooms all along. I kind of like the idea. I don't think ladies mind sharing their bathrooms with kindred spirits with peepees and have been all along. What hasn't happened is our acknowledging these people exist. And they have to go to the bathroom too. If the law changes then bathrooms will be all stalls and there will be more waiting for stalls. There always are peaks. In the future then, larger size bathrooms mostly underused and insufficient for both at whatever their peak. I'm trying to help you adjust.
Isn't it interesting observing activists agitate for two opposed positions? The left is agitating the right to accept unisex bathrooms while the left agitates the right to accept increased immigration from populations with religious sensitivity to separation of sexes. Those two things don't go together yet both are demanded. Life itself presents conflicting demands sometimes.