Voyeurism incidents lead to closure of Gender Neutral Bathrooms on Toronto College Campus

October 6, 2015

feat

Officials at the University of Toronto were forced to eliminate their “gender neutral” bathroom policy after a string of incidents involving women being filmed while showering. On at least two separate occasions last month, female students spotted cell phones being held over the stall partition to record them while they bathed. The perpetrators have not been caught. No word yet on whether the victims will sue the University for putting them at risk with the policy, which restricted women’s ability to bathe and use the toilet away from the presence of men.

From the Toronto Star:

“Toronto Police Const. Victor Kwong said Monday that two women in separate instances at the Whitney Hall residence reported that they saw a cellphone reach over the shower-stall dividers in an attempt to record them. Police have yet to find any information about the culprit, but the investigation is ongoing.

At least one gender-neutral washroom remains on each floor.

Melinda Scott, the dean of students at University College, said some bathrooms in Whitney Hall have now been designated specifically for residents who identify as men or women. However, several gender-neutral bathrooms remain.

“The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by the incidents of voyeurism and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom,” said Scott.

The Varsity, student newspaper reports:

“On two separate occasions — September 15 and 19 — two female residents at the university’s Whitney Hall residence building were the victims of voyeurism, having been filmed while they were showering. As a result, Whitney Hall and its four University College (UC) housing affiliates have revoked their gender neutral policy on many of the residence’s washrooms.

It fell to Melinda Scott, dean of students at UC, to break the news. “Given the serious nature of these incidents and the impact on directly affected students, we made the decision to specifically designate some washrooms throughout the building for those who identify as men and those who identify as women. At the same time, there remains at least one gender-neutral washroom per floor and per house,” Scott said in a statement to The Varsity.

Many students are in shock. “It’s scary to think that there’s someone nearby that’s doing that kind of thing,” said Tessa Mahrt-Smith, a first-year Whitney resident. Melissa Birch, also a first-year resident of Whitney and shares Mahrt-Smith’s sentiments. “I think it sucks that there are going to be people that don’t feel safe in Whitney now, and that we can’t have an inclusive environment.”

images

100 Responses to “Voyeurism incidents lead to closure of Gender Neutral Bathrooms on Toronto College Campus”

  1. GallusMag Says:

    Who could have anticipated such a thing? /s

  2. Artemis Says:

    Who cares about being inclusive when women aren’t safe?! Priorities…….

    • misandry-fairy Says:

      You’d think “inclusive” would include women and their safety…

      • misandry-fairy Says:

        Humpf, women and their pesky safety concerns. The nerve to not make way to the tiny little fraction of the population that feels slighted by not having a “gender neutral” bathroom. They’re uppity bitches, aren’t they? Always wanting to be safe and not get sexually assaulted.

  3. Siobhan Says:

    My daughter and I visited Swarthmore recently. In the dorm we toured, most of the women’s bathrooms had been made “gender neutral” (i.e. had a paper “gender neutral” sign pasted over the “women” sign) but the men’s bathrooms were still men’s bathrooms. My daughter asked why it was that men got their own bathrooms but women did not, and was told that it was put up to a vote in each section. So why is it that women vote against their own self-interest? I think they believe themselves to be showing support to their confused “transboi” and “gendahqueer” friends, but don’t get that they are inviting voyeurs into their own bathrooms.

    • hearthrising Says:

      I’ll bet the women would have gotten a huge amount of criticism and negative attention if they hadn’t voted the way they did, so much so that we would be reading about it on Gallus’ blog, but no one will care about the men voting themselves their own space.

      • kesher Says:

        If it’s a secret ballot, they can be a “terfy” as they wish. Unfortunately, many young women are willingly signing up for this nonsense.

    • CD Says:

      I hate the idea that it’s somehow progressive to put women’s rights to a vote, or that whoever is most vocal gets to relinquish our rights on behalf of all women. After all, it’s possible to approve something like this with only 51% of women agreeing that they are comfortable with letting men into their private spaces. The other 49% could be deeply uncomfortable with the idea, perhaps because they correctly recognise that their rights to privacy and to safety are being taken away from them.

      My workplace had a similar issue last year with women’s bathrooms being converted to “gender neutral” bathrooms through the use of a paper sign. In this case, it wasn’t even put to a vote (self-appointed “diversity experts” were consulted). Someone kept removing the signs🙂


      • It’s amazing how no one even CONSIDERS making the men’s bathroom the “all genders” bathroom, even though it’s only men’s rooms that have all types of facilities including urinals.

    • stopthemadness Says:

      Ugh! It makes me want to bash my head against the wall! When will these women wake up and stop trying to coddle and “mommy” everybody?

      How many more women have to be leered at and assaulted in what should be a safe space for us to get it in their heads that there are more important things to protect than their precious tumblr cred?

    • radicaljane Says:

      Yep. Same exact thing happened at the New School (right down to “your choices are ‘men’ and ‘other,’) though the signs have been taken down so I assume it didn’t go very well.

    • Chuck Says:

      Because Men are not Stupid

  4. hearthrising Says:

    “I think it sucks that there are going to be people that don’t feel safe in Whitney now, and that we can’t have an inclusive environment.” So they thought they could just act as if poor male behavior doesn’t exist, and they would automatically have safety and “inclusivity.” It doesn’t work that way.

    • born free & female Says:

      Note the word “now”. I think she means that having separate men’s and women’s rooms will make people feel unsafe, because they’re non-inclusive.

      • hearthrising Says:

        My bad. I assumed she meant women will feel unsafe because of the video incident, but I’ll bet you’re right.

      • CD Says:

        Yeah, I’m fairly sure that she is not expressing concern for the safety of the women who were filmed showering.

        Anyway, their current policy still allows people to use whatever bathroom they “identify” with, which is still inclusive of FtTs and MtTs. I imagine that those who feel “unsafe” are the non-binary genderfluid special snowflakes who are upset that they now have to choose either the female bathroom or the male one.

  5. tnt666 Says:

    Toilets and showers and changerooms should not be about Gender identity, they should be about biological sex. When can we make this stick😦

  6. stchauvinism Says:

    Solution: Lets make men’s bath rooms, locker rooms and bath houses open and safe for all sexes and make women’s bathrooms female only. It’s ridiculous that trans insist that it is somehow men’s natural urge to beat, rape and murder men who don’t perform masculinity “correctly”. If trans activists can insist that men who identify as women aren’t a threat to women regardless of the fact convicted rapists and murderers are not banned from changing legal gender marker and name and there are many cases of men who identify as women doing violence to women and children, then women can insists that there is no evidence that men who identify as women are at risk if asked to use public male sex segregated spaces. Besides, a campaign to make male sex segregated spaces safe for all would benefit all men and boys and women who identify as men.


    • Excellent idea. Let biological males evolve and accommodate Ts. Because it’s sexist to claim that all men are violent and a threat to Ts.

      I wonder which restroom F2Ts prefer. Oh, didn’t a transman recently make a fuss about being cruised in a mall restroom? She thought she was being harassed…hm.

    • FTM Says:

      Sorry but you are wrong on the ” there are many cases of men who identify as women doing violence to women and children” unless you are speaking about outside of restrooms because there are NO cases where a transgender individual has done what you are saying inside a restroom! But there have been plenty of cases where a transgender individual has been attacked inside restrooms!

      • GallusMag Says:

        Do you actually believe that or are you just lying?
        There have been hundreds, if not thousands of incidents where males use transgenderism to prey on women in restrooms. Here are a few of them: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/men-love-the-ladies-restroom-transgender-edition/
        I can pull up many, many, more documented incidents if you need more.

        Now.
        Can you document your claim that there are “plenty of cases” of males being attacked in male restrooms because of their gender identity? I have not been able to find a single incident, much less “plenty”. This should be fairly easy for you to document if it is as widespread as you claim. Any documentation would be helpful. Good luck.

      • stchauvinism Says:

        you are wrong. see this site. it’s an incomplete list cause it got too depressing.https://allisonslaw.wordpress.com/ Send me a list of transwomen, meaning transgender males, ie; men who identify as women, who have been attacked in men’s bathrooms. Enlighten me.

      • kesher Says:

        Well there was Chrissy Polis, but, ultimately, he wasn’t attacked for being trans. If anything, that incident proved that MTTs aren’t safe in the *women’s* restroom.

      • GallusMag Says:

        He also wasn’t attacked for using a restroom, but for “looking at my man”.

      • GallusMag Says:

        FTM? Any luck finding those cases of males being attacked in male bathrooms for being transgender or wearing women’s clothes? Hello?

  7. dejavublonde Says:

    o, let’s play a game! How will they spin this so that it’s everyone’s fault but the trans?
    -there’s no proof it was a trans person
    -obviously this mentally disturbed person would have gone in and done this no matter what, it being gender neutral would have not encouraged this at all. ever. we promise.
    -women illegally videotape other women that are naked all the time! more than men do even!
    -even if it were someone in a dress, obviously they aren’t trans because (circular logic) trans people don’t do that so if they do that (even though trans supporters deny the existence of autogynephiles they somehow temporarily remember the existence when stating the above circular logic)
    -the women are lying
    -it could have been a million times worse- it could have been a poor traumatized trans that was filmed which rather than being something endearing would have been THE MOST HORRIBLE THING EVER TO THE POOR SOUL because, they feel the feels deeper than women.
    -see? trans people are never safe. ever. (i don’t know how that would apply but I guarantee it comes into play)

    • kesher Says:

      It’s not likely a trans though. The showers are completely “gender neutral” which means that men and women are using those facilities with no segregation, not even meaningless gender “identity”.

      What really infuriates me is that the college didn’t even see fit to put floor-to-ceiling dividers between the stalls. I’d ask what the administration was thinking, but, in my experience, the push for “gender neutral” everything has been generally been coming from students who hold campus-wide votes on the issue. I’m sure the male vote in favor was overwhelming.


    • I actually agree, that it was unlikely to be an M2T.

      However! Trans dumbassed politics dictates that “anyone” who “feels like a woman” is more than welcome to enter female SEX segregated spaces, because:laydeefeels.

      They may not be the perps in this case, but they sure are the facilitators! And they don’t mind one bit. They don’t mind that their ‘cis bros’ use laydeefeels to enter female spaces, just ‘our’ badluck. Well M2Ts, that actually makes you an accessory to (het) male predation, no matter which way you swing in your laydeefeels.

      Their total lack of concern for female safety and dignity, is proof that they are still very much male at heart, and always will be. Otherwise, they would be demanding that ONLY LEGITIMATE ‘trans’ enter our spaces. They won’t. Case closed. It’s the old ‘bros before hos’ bizzo. So laydees, you can fuck off out of our spaces as well. buh-bye!

      • dejavublonde Says:

        I swear, some days I leave half my comments in my head- I meant as an ‘overarching’ reason to blame them or when this comes up in the future as an example as to why it’s a REALLY stupid idea for mixed sex organ spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, showers etc) or when they scream sob about why they should be continued to be allowed in.

        when, in reality, this wouldn’t have happened if the area wasn’t a sex organ space free for all- if it were for women with vaginas (not feels vaginas) then a man, dressed as a woman or otherwise, wouldn’t have had the opportunity to pull this shit. TWICE.

      • Rachel Says:

        “Legitimate” trans….

        LOLZ! Would you know one of them (a legitimate one) if you saw them?

        I’m sure a “legitimate” trans could control the rest of the tranny population much easier than “normal” women (such as those posting here) simply by (as you say) demanding the men listen to them and take orders.

        Legitimate trans!!…

        That’s Funniest shit I’ve read all year!

    • shediogenes Says:

      You forgot how the women being filmed should really be flattered because having your boundaries violated and being treated like a commodified object is proof that you are doing woman really well. It was a compliment to be filmed against your wishes


  8. When are these people going to buy a clue? Gender is inherently UNNEUTRAL. There is no way to neutralize oppression. Oppressors will take any opportunity to reify their right to oppress. This isn’t about sex or the desire to see naked women. After all, it’s damned near impossible to AVOID seeing naked women these days. Nudity and porn is so pervasive it’s almost impossible to miss. No, this is nothing but oppression, and it cannot be neutralized.

  9. prozac Says:

    Well, my mind is blown that people are SURPRISED by this? Did they grow up under rocks? I never thought I’d be so grateful to be in my thirties…

  10. Pf Says:

    And since they’re still defining who uses which restroom by self identification rather than objective reality, it’s still counting on men to behave themselves. Which they won’t. I predict the problem doesn’t stop until they catch the perp.


  11. […] Voyeurism incidents lead to closure of Gender Neutral Bathrooms on Toronto College Campus | GenderTr… […]

  12. Artemis Jade Says:

    It’s intriguing that the interim solution implicitly vilifies men who identify as men. The college assumes, on the other hand, that men who identify as women are well-meaning people who are safe to allow into a women’s rest room. Education is needed here about a) men like Colleen Francis and Carlotta Sklodowska who have no interest in sports or working out, only in loitering in women’s locker rooms and b) the many prominent transactivists who’ve been arrested for pedophilia.

  13. Mary Sunshine Says:

    Women have been getting approval for offering themselves up to men since forever. It’s a knee-jerk response by now. (referring to why women roll over for this stuff and men don’t)

  14. KB Says:

    There are several ‘gender neutral’ bathrooms in my city and I hate them. Even the singles make me feel uncomfortable since I know men put cameras in bathrooms all the time. With both men and women using the same bathroom employees cannot easily monitor creepers. The bathrooms are also always gross and it’s extremely alienating/unpleasant to go into a bathroom with a urinal that reeks of piss.

    • mon Says:

      When I go into a single that men have access to, I check out areas for possible cameras. Then I take out my own phone and snap the overhead vent. Let them get the creeps when they see that on their video. I also turn off the light and go. Most phones have a little flash light that comes in handy.

  15. Jenny Says:

    THIS IS SO FUCKED UP!

    why are they letting the trans cult get away with so much. Is everyone crazy?

    A man is a man and a woman is a woman. There are bathrooms for men and bathrooms for women for a goddamn reason. If you don’t feel confortable using the bathroom of your sex then don’t fucking use bathrooms at all, that is your own fucking problem. Stop ruining everyone else’s lives because you can’t accept who you are.
    I feel so bad for those girls.

  16. Double X Marks The Spot Says:

    Cheers, Gallus! I have two degrees from U of T & I am grateful I went there in the 80s and early 90s, when men were banned from women’s residences. I recall some of my classmates smuggling their boyfriends into the women’s residence at New College around ’87 or ’88. In the morning, when the guys needed to use the toilet, they had to go negotiate with the other women on the floor to let their boyfriends have a few minutes in the bathroom. One guy peed in a cup and dumped it out the window rather than use the women’s toilet. It was respected as a women-only space and for a man to just swan in there was unthinkable.

  17. liberalsareinsane Says:

    Those girls sound like manson girls.

      • coelacanth Says:

        Manson girls: We never killed anyone because they were already dead and you can’t kill “kill”.

        Trans: The penis is a female organ and men can give birth because we said so and fee-fees and suicide.

        A cult by any other name would smell as rotten.

      • GallusMag Says:

        “You can’t kill “Kill”. OMg that was one of their thought terminating cliches, I forgot that one. Jesus.

      • nniilate Says:

        There is a trans who was killed in Philly.

        No proof yet of hate crime because of trans but that doesn’t stop the hysterical social media response. Yet everyday 3 women die because of domestic violence.

        For people who want to identify and join feminism, they don’t seem to give a crap about women in general

  18. nniilate Says:

    Seeing something on social media now about how Ladywell Spa in in Seattle is discriminating because is asks “transgender females that are pre op are required to remain covered in the genital and chest region at all times”. MtFs all upset. Hell, give them a compromise and they just want more and more. Lots of mocking comments about how women who might not want to be exposed to a penis are irrational.

    • nonny Says:

      I’ll be giving them my money. I need a damn spa day anyway, my last was in 2005.

    • kesher Says:

      If the trans take this to the city, Ladywells’ only solution is going to have to be to require everyone remain clothed, to become officially male-inclusive, or to shut down. Seattle law says women have no right to privacy.

    • GallusMag Says:

      [Archiving]
      ———————————————-

      Hi,

      I called and spoke with [manager] earlier regarding the gender policy –
      specifically the part which states “Transgender Females that are Pre
      Op are required to remain covered in the genital and chest area at all
      times.”

      First, all three people I’ve spoken with at the spa – including [the manager]
      – mentioned only that genitals must be covered. I am particularly
      curious about the reasoning for the requirement for chest to remain
      covered. I also question the terminology used – it implies that those
      of us who are pre-op (or non-op) are not “presenting as female,” which
      is somewhat insulting.

      My main concern, though, is the reasoning for this policy. I was first
      told it is for “comfort and safety” which is absurd – there is no
      safety concern. On challenging that I have consistently been told this
      policy is due to a legal requirement. I’ve done some research on the
      subject and I have not been able to locate any such regulation. What
      is the regulation that’s the basis for this policy?

      That said the policy does seem to be at odds with both city and state
      law as stated below:

      SMC Chapter 14.06 “Public Accommodations Practices”
      http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/toc/14-06.htm

      Section 14.06.030:

      Paragraph B: “It is an unfair practice for any person to discriminate
      in a place of public accommodation by: (4) Printing, circulating,
      issuing, displaying, posting, or otherwise causing, directly or
      indirectly, to be published a statement […] which indicates directly
      or indirectly that the full enjoyment of the goods, services,
      facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations will be […]
      in some manner limited or restricted […] or that an individual’s
      patronage of or presence at a place of public accommodation is
      objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable.”

      Section 14.06.020:

      Paragraph L: “‘Discrimination’ means any conduct […] the effect of
      which is to […] differentiate between or among individuals or groups
      of individuals, because of [..] gender identity […]”

      Paragraph N: “‘Gender identity’ means a person’s identity, expression,
      or physical characteristics, whether or not traditionally associated
      with one’s biological sex or one’s sex at birth […]”

      RCW Chapter 49.60 “Discrimination — Human Rights Commission”
      http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.60

      Section 49.60.215:

      Paragraph 1: “It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the
      person’s agent or employee to commit an act which directly or
      indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination
      […]”

      Section 49.60.030:

      Paragraph 1: “The right to be free from discrimination because of
      […] sexual orientation […] is recognized an declared to be a civil
      right. This right shall include but not be limited to: (b) The right
      to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages,
      facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort,
      accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;”

      Section 49.60.040:

      Paragraph 14: “‘Full enjoyment of’ includes […] the admission of any
      person to accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any
      place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement,
      without acts directly or indirectly causing persons of any particular
      […] sexual orientation […] to be treated as not welcome, accepted,
      desired, or solicited.”

      Paragraph 26: “‘Sexual orientation’ means […] gender expression or
      identity. As used in this definition, ‘gender expression or identity’
      means having or being perceived as having a gender identity,
      self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that
      gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is
      different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to
      that person at birth.”

      —————

      The policy as it stands explicitly and directly interferes with full
      enjoyment of the privileges and advantages associated with admission
      to Ladywell’s because of what city law defines as “gender identity”
      and state law as “sexual orientation” (which is defined to encompass
      gender identity and expression). In addition I have consistently been
      told that the policy is for appearance’s sake, implying that
      Ladywell’s desires to conceal the fact that they may have pre-op trans
      customers which says to me that pre-op (or non-op) trans women are
      unwelcome, undesired, and objectionable.

      I look forward to your reply. If there is a regulatory basis for this
      policy, I would very much like to know what it is.

      Regards,
      Amy

  19. ex home birther Says:

    I feel awful that these women had to pay for these decisions. Maybe radfems could start a legal fund to help women sue after being victimized by these policies. School administrators would have to sit in court and answer for their total lack of common sense.

    • lovetruthcourage Says:

      Exactly! This is the best reply yet. Nothing will ever change until the responsible parties truly fear legal actions taken by biological women. They already very much fear such actions taken on behalf of trans, especially when trans are backed by so many LGBT orgs, the ACLU and SPLC. Again: only when they also fear lawsuits by actual women will anything change! I would contribute to such a fund.

      • ephemeroptera Says:

        You know, I’ve heard that the “Know Your IX” activism is a bit like this, where external authority is brought in through complaint filing.

        With Title IX, however, penalties are “all or nothing” (loss of all federal funding), so penalties apart from negative publicity aren’t applied and outcomes are less desirable.

  20. KgSch Says:

    I lived in a co-ed dorm for my freshman year of college and the women’s bathrooms had locks on them because they previously had incidences of men going into the bathrooms and trying to film the women. This is a pretty liberal school (though it is still in a conservative state) but I wouldn’t be surprised if now they want to get rid of the locks and let any dude come in.

    It is highly likely that the perpetrator(s) were your average male, but these policies are a facilitator for such things. I have heard of several other instances where the women’s bathrooms are the ones that get converted into the “gender neutral” or “unisex” bathrooms. The men’s bathrooms are untouched. Most men would be pissed at having their spaces taken away. Plenty of women are quite pissed too, but are bullied into silence, often by other women. The patriarch can’t do the policing without his women helpmates.

    The “inclusive” line is so infuriating. This is another example of them co-opting language of radical feminists. Back when we had women-only and lesbian-only space, the goal was to create an inclusive community regardless of things like class and race. It did not mean insane bullshit like sharing the restroom with men.

  21. Zemskull Says:

    Almost everyone recalls that the shared bathrooms in college or military dorms were lousy. Hauling your toiletries in a plastic basket down the hall, having to bring your keys, waiting for a shower to open at peak times, realizing you forgot your shampoo when you were already in the shower…They sure didn’t need to add the threat of sexual predators to the mix.

  22. Bill Says:

    not in toronto where the lesbian premier spends her time and her former deputy education minister, a pedophile is in jail … who would have thought?

  23. Cathy Says:

    Dumb idea from the start for these bathrooms! What were they thinking!

  24. Mick Maclaren Says:

    These people are trying to be politically correct, and just end up being stupid, All they need to do is have some private single stall bathrooms with a Male and a Female sign on the door. Then anyone and everyone can use the room.

  25. Paul1984 Says:

    It seems like a bad design. Why are the stalls not self contained rooms with a proper lockable door? I’ve used lots of gender neutral bathrooms and not one of them had partitions you could reach over. Seems to me like they tried to do it on the cheap and just redesignated existing bathrooms rather than do the work to turn then into gender neutral ones. Yes it’s sad that people abuse the situation but it’s even sadder that the university was so naïve.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Stalls are designed for economy and ease of scheduled maintenance and cleaning. Easy access allows assistance in case of emergency (medical emergency, drug overdose,etc.) and to discourage illegal activity. Women also sometimes need to hand items into the stalls (toilet paper, tampons).

    • GallusMag Says:

      Also, it isn’t “people” abusing “the situation”. It is males conducting a campaign of mass sexual predation and violence against females. Your framing tries to render the actual problem invisible and unspoken, and not by accident, sir.

  26. Darth_Jader Says:

    It was the goddamn feminists who pushed for the gender neutral bathrooms in the first place!!!! Now this is the university’s fault????? You sjw’s just can’t accept responsibility for your own actiins can you????

  27. YKR Says:

    Forcing people to only use gender neutral bathrooms, is just as bad as forcing people to only use gender specific ones. If you’re going to be actually and truly inclusive, you also have to be inclusive to those who want to use gender specific bathrooms too.

  28. Pay Says:

    Duuuhhhhh, what a surprise😑

  29. Yvonne Copithorne Says:

    Seems the minority , those who think they might prefer to be a women or consider a sex change etc can use the opposite sex bathroom are trusted with sincerity giving rise to the minority of perverts or the curious to use them also ! Good grief ! What next !??

  30. rfisch Says:

    If it it truly a “gender neutral” washroom, etc. it should have space for only 1 person to use at a time with a door that locks. That way no matter who is using it, it remains private.

  31. Aiden Says:

    U of T made gender neutral showering areas…and didn’t think to maybe make sure the stalls couldn’t be peeked in to or breached? This isn’t a gender problem, this is a terrible planning problem. Make all shower and toilet stalls floor to ceiling and lockable, and this entire incident could have been avoided.

    But that would require having a brain.

    • GallusMag Says:

      Speaking of having a brain- do you have any idea of the cost both in labor and chemicals, of maintaining sealed floor-to-ceiling pubic showers/toilets and keeping them free of grime, bacteria, infectious disease, fungus, and mildew? Not to mention the security involved in spotting medical emergencies and halting illegal activities?

      Also, if this isn’t a “gender” problem (or rather a problem related to the exploitation of female persons by male persons) then where are all the arrests of women committing sexual voyeurism? Huh? Where? Get that brain working soon!

  32. G E Tay Says:

    Eventually all of this mixing of the genders is going to crash in the governments face. You think there are problems now keep trying to force on people this garbage and predators will have a field day. It’s totally against what the Creator of mankind had created. The more we try to play God and deliberately desecrate His laws of nature the more problematic things will become. Stop the madness. Everyone is entitled to their privacy.

    • Janetwo Says:

      mmmmm…..typically, people big into words like ”creator of mankind” have very little understanding about the laws of nature. Natural sciences are just convenient when they massage their biases. Ask Galileo or Darwin. The reference books of most monotheistic religions have not so much to do with what God supposedly wrote, as with what some old patriarchal farts thought. But I may be wrong on this. I just dont believe that going back to some kind of mythical golden age when men were manly men with barefoot pregnant wives polishing the hardwood floors on their knees is the way to go. Assuming to know about God laws or to pretend to speak in her name is playing God far more than anything else I can imagine. If we are going to make sense of all of this, I would rather we do it based on these two very human concepts: reason and compassion. They might not be perfect and all powerful, but they really are the best and most universally recognized tools we have at the moment.

    • RR Says:

      Dollars to donuts this post was linked from a right-wing site. One commenter raging about da evil feminist SJWs and the other about desecrating the natural laws of his man-god. The fucking entitlement it shows to just get linked to blog and post away with the assumption that your audience has the same hetero male opinion on the world. Straight males and lesbians both know that women don’t hang dong, but the rest? Good grief, Charlie Brown.

      • GallusMag Says:

        I think there’s some conservative handwringing over the replacement of legal sex with “gender” in Washington State. The usual: Right wingers who don’t follow the issue discovering it belatedly, then rushing in and yelling “Jesus” to alienate everyone in the middle.

  33. Jennifer Says:

    If bathroom policies like this were to become universal, I could never allow my daughters (ages 8, 6, and 3) to use a bathroom outside of our home. Hope y’all have a mop handy.

    • red Says:

      Old women, disabled women, poor women using public transit with three kids two under 5, women with bladder disease and women who have had permanent pelvic damage from mismanaged childbirth and sexual assaults and all of those living in poverty because of their generally untreated and dismissed illnesses — unlike those whose trans treatments and surgery is paid for.

      It’s men sitting in public office who make these rulings, at the insistence of other men at ACLU etc. Most of whom have private keyed washrooms.

  34. kipperbernie Says:

    One wants to be accommodating, but at the expense of who? Why not just institutionalize it that trans people may use whatever gender bathroom they identify with and leave the bathrooms classified as either male or female? If a transgender identifies as female wouldn’t they want to use the woman’s washroom? (& vice versa). Or are we creating a new sex here that requires its own bathrooms? A unisex approach puts women at risk from people who see the classification as an opportunity to be creeps (as demonstrated) … and what about the right to choose for females who don’t want to share a washroom with a man? Surely there must be more of those than trans people. Don’t their preferences matter?

    • Janetwo Says:

      I think there is a case to make under the organic label. In personals, we could advertize as being 100% organic women. We could have organic women meetings, festivals, clubs, gyms, toilets….So there we are, on one side we have hormone free, organic women, on the other side, the hormone pumped synthetic ones. Really, TERF is a misnomer not reflecting the political position of women saying MTTs are not female, the proper acronym is Woman Organically Made Affirming Nature (WOMAN).

  35. Chris Says:

    Holy crap , that bloody reality gate crashed the genderless dream again, maybe we could have bathrooms with rape alarms and pepper spray

  36. Polly Says:

    So…did these incidents occur on the gender neutral bathrooms? Or the women only ones? I read this article in a hurry but didn’t it say that there are men’s rooms, women’s rooms and gender neutral? Of this occurred on the women’s restrooms what does this have to do with the presence of gender neutral restrooms on campus? How are the two related?

    • GallusMag Says:

      I am approving this comment because it is, in the parlance of the great lower level management theorist Michael Scott, “comedically humorous”. Best of luck with the reading comprehension and kudos on question mark usage.

  37. tj654 Says:

    Despite the fact that there were women’s & men’s only restrooms available, I don’t really see that as an excuse-I mean, just flip though tumblr for 2 minutes, & you see how bad some of these people are-they likely were made to feel like using the women’s only one was bigoted somehow, or they’d lose their ‘progressive’ card if they didn’t use the gender neutral one. And why is it whenever scenarios such as these are brought up hypothetically, trans & trans supporters will always say ‘that has NEVER happened even once!’. Like really? A quick search will find that just isn’t true.

  38. johnny Says:

    theirs a perfectly good explanation for this. When they entered the womens bath they felt like a women. But when they heard the other women stripping, their cock stood at the ready and they felt like a man again hahaha.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: