The following comes from a January 31 Breitbart article by William Bigelow:
A new bill proposed by Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) AB 1732, would force businesses, government buildings and other public venues to stop identifying single-use restrooms as either male or female and identify themselves as “all-gender” instead.
Co-author David Chiu (D-San Francisco) added, “Having access to a restroom without restrictions based on one’s gender identity simply makes sense. All gender restrooms will enhance dignity and safety for transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in their daily lives.”
California has already fought one big battle over bathrooms in recent years.
San Francisco legislators have been pushing the envelope for restroom use for years. In July 2013, AB 1266, authored by then-Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, required public K-12 schools to let transgender students choose which restrooms they use and which school teams they join based on their gender identity. But AB1266 did not collect enough valid signatures to make the November 2014 ballot.
In 2015, the Personal Privacy Protection Act, which called for persons to “use facilities in accordance with their biological sex in all government buildings,” and protected private businesses from being “subject to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions, or civil suits for requiring employees, patrons, students, or any other person to use facilities in accordance with their biological sex,” failed to make the November 2016 ballot.
The bill, authored by a group called Privacy For All, did not gather the number of required signatures to make the ballot.
What could possibly go wrong?
More atheistic nonsense. Where is the voice of the Catholic hierarchy?
That’s just not right. So, gender disordered folks have priority over everyone else, huh?
Not to mention men are really nasty in the bathroom; I’ve always found gender neutral bathrooms much nastier than women’s bathrooms.
How about children? Who wants their children seeing the genitals of strangers of the opposite sex?
Mary please understand this bill: You wouldn’t be “seeing the genitals of strangers”. (Do you usually see genitals in your bathrooms anyway? You aren’t supposed to look!!!
Besides which, these are SINGLE use bathrooms. Not group bathrooms.
Per article: “AB 1732, would force businesses, government buildings and other public venues to stop identifying single-use restrooms as either male or female and identify themselves as “all-gender” instead.”
Safety for a few transgenders, how about safety for all the women who just have to go?? Ladies, do you really want to encounter men in the restroom, do you want your granddaughters to? This is so stupid – how many assaults will have to take place before these political loons wake up?
Kristin, per the article, you are not supposed to be encountering anyone in these bathrooms, of any gender: “AB 1732, would force businesses, government buildings and other public venues to stop identifying single-use restrooms as either male or female and identify themselves as “all-gender” instead.”
“YFC”, you can ignore warning signs if you like, but this latest bathroom bill pushes the flawed notion that men and women are all the same – they are not!
It’s not just not about sharing bathrooms, bad as that would be. This is another agenda item on the list of those who prefer to deny that God made them “male and female”.
Kristin, I’m simply clarifying what the bill does. It is only about single use bathrooms. If you encounter anyone else in that bathroom, whether your gender or some other gender, you had better leave. If you do, they probably forgot to lock the lock.
Exactly the same as restrooms on an airplane, a train, or in your own home. EXACTLY the same thing.
“Clarifying what the bill does” is not the whole story, and I know that, even if others choose to ignore the handwriting on the wall. Pathetic really.
That’s disgusting. I don’t want to walk into a public bathroom and see men standing by the urinals peeing. How am I supposed to wash my hands or take care of something that is not appropriate for male eyes if everyone is there watching. Besides men’s bathrooms usually stink really bad, and a lot of men don’t wash there hands. I don’t even mind trans-genders in the bathroom with me. At least they are not interested in looking and ogling.
This is just sooo wrong.
…like we men want females to be “able” to come in and “see us standing by the urinals peeing”?? Privacy, modesty and respect go both ways, sister. And I don’t know of any guy who would want to look, or ogle any female in the bathroom. I believe “yuck” is the word which applies, here.
United States has gone nuts!
Let’s read what was said: “single-use restrooms as either male or female” which are bathroom for only one person, not large multi-use restrooms. Most homes have “single-use” bathrooms, don’t they? When traveling through Europe and Asia, I have never seen single-use bathrooms designated for one sex/gender or the other. Anyway, even in this country single-use restrooms are already designated for either sex/gender. (we have to use that term don’t we? :) There are so many important things we could be talking about.
“…There are so many important things we could be talking about.”
Then why waste time and money pushing for this issue? There has to be an underlying motive, Bob One, and/or a step two. People don’t put time and money into something that appears to be a non-issue unless it plugs something else for which they feel deeply. Let’s not play stupid.
Calm down, everybody. This refers to single-use facilities: one-holers, where one person goes in at a time. Chiu is presumably trying to make points with the GLBTRPDQs or whatever, but what he is proposing is perfectly reasonable, if unnecessary. Most of these I know of are already just marked “rest room”, and if they’re not, they are anyway. More than once, when I have found the men’s room occupied, I have slipped into the ladies’ to do my business and have never been arrested.
Well, this is great! It means that our distinguished legislators have managed to solve all of California’s major problems, and now have time to devote their considerable wisdom to the question of whom they’d like to encounter in a public restroom. Apparently the issues of water, land use, crime, immigration, transportation, taxation, etc. etc. etc. have been solved to their satisfaction. On to the REALLY important stuff!
Or, to quote Mark Larson, “Don’t call them lawmakers – it only encourages them”.
Now we’ll have to start being careful to see that the seat is “down” when using a bathroom? Or, will we all have to stand?
This is silly, stupid and sophomoric. Our society, meaning the culture and our church, is falling to pieces, and law makers are legislating nonsense like this. Now the top military brass want women to register for the draft. Can it get any worse than yes; you bet it can, and you ain’t seen nothing yet.
To be fair to all gender neutral people, business should provide a third bathroom for gender neutral identification. If ever bathrooms became Co ed women would have to go pared up with a friend or husband to avoid the possibility of harrasment. The whole urinal issue would be satisfied by locating them in a section of the room with a partition wall esentally creating a room inside the room as are with the toilets. Those who are really modest can just use the toilets behind the closed partition. I am in no way in favor of this but I do see it coming one day.
Anon, been in a college dorm lately?
Do tell, Bob One, all your recent experiences in college dorms and bathrooms.
Prominent Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Emotional Unhappiness … Purely Psychological’
– from “a scientific perspective,” being “transgendered” is a psychological issue – “emotional unhappiness” – and “cosmetic surgery” is not the “proper treatment.”
“‘Transgendered’ are people who claim that they really are or wish to be people of the sex opposite to which they were born, or to which their chromosomal configuration attests,” he stated
“Scientifically, there is no such thing,” he said.
“The medical treatment of delusions, psychosis or emotional happiness is not by surgery,”
n our church we have 3 single use restrooms, One off the side door, another in the crying room and a third near the sacresty.. Nobody ever thought about it in all the 70 years it’s been around.
No one is gender neutral. That idea is insane. One is either male or female. If someone has an imbalance in hormones, than medicine and or an operation can correct the defect. Otherwise, all we have is show boating someone’s fantasies which are bordering on psychopathic madness.
Thank you, Pilar, for speaking like a rational thinking human being in full control of her faculties. This entire notion of putting “Gender Neutral” on bathrooms is another method of advertisement. Everyone has to use the bathroom at some point. They usually discern that choice by way of male/female as the signage indicates. So by putting “Gender Neutral” on a bathroom door that is nothing but the means of stating without speaking that one’s sex is not really an issue and one can be nothing.
How about we put Nutritional Neutral signage on food in super markets, or health neutral signage on cigarettes or booze. Really? I mean there are folks put off by the hazard warnings on cigarettes because, they can’t help but light up…
… Why harass those people? We should put health neutral on cigarettes and booze to make the population feel affirmed in their choices. (After all, there is no mandatory health warning that goes along with the promotion of sodomy. Just a biased assertion that it’s all okay, despite the health risks involved.)
Funny, are you, oh Ann Malley. But let me ask you, when is the last time you used the lady’s room on an airplane?
Sadly, sex perverts have taken over the CA legislature.