Poll: A sensitive question about transgender and locker rooms

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

double post please delete.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Clearly this conversation is not worth having with you since you choose to insult my opinion. I am sorry that I assumed we could have a reasonable discussion. But to answer your question, people should not insult anyone's religion, I know I don't defend people who do. People can be atheist, but like religion this should be a personal and should not be pushed on others who do not want it. Should people not be gay, no, but they should not promote themselves in a way that makes other uncomfortable, the same applies to straight people who are too forward. My point being, people should conduct themselves such that they are not intentionally causing discomfort for others, and if not, they cannot expect that of others.

Wait, simply using a change room is considered "intentionally causing discomfort for others"? Depending on how much surgery or hormone therapy you've received chances are you're going to make someone uncomfortable regardless of the gender you were born with, just like Revnak said. This woman wouldn't have been any less freaked out if it was someone born a woman who looked like a man. Seriously, I'm convinced that people want there to be a segregated transgender change room, because that is the only way they'll be able to change without anyone feeling uncomfortable (You know, except for the segregated trans people, but fuck them, they're not the majority here)

The whole idea of promoting yourself in a way that doesn't make other people uncomfortable is ridiculous. There's people who will feel uncomfortable seeing an interracial couple holding hands. Should they not hold hands for the consideration of others? I'm pretty sure that the woman in this scenario wanted to use the change room for the gender she identified with, not deliberately make people feel uncomfortable. I'm very confused why this is even being brought up.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Clearly this conversation is not worth having with you since you choose to insult my opinion. I am sorry that I assumed we could have a reasonable discussion. But to answer your question, people should not insult anyone's religion, I know I don't defend people who do. People can be atheist, but like religion this should be a personal and should not be pushed on others who do not want it. Should people not be gay, no, but they should not promote themselves in a way that makes other uncomfortable, the same applies to straight people who are too forward. My point being, people should conduct themselves such that they are not intentionally causing discomfort for others, and if not, they cannot expect that of others.

Wait, simply using a change room is considered "intentionally causing discomfort for others"? Depending on how much surgery or hormone therapy you've received chances are you're going to make someone uncomfortable regardless of the gender you were born with, just like Revnak said. This woman wouldn't have been any less freaked out if it was someone born a woman who looked like a man. Seriously, I'm convinced that people want there to be a segregated transgender change room, because that is the only way they'll be able to change without anyone feeling uncomfortable (You know, except for the segregated trans people, but fuck them, they're not the majority here)

The whole idea of promoting yourself in a way that doesn't make other people uncomfortable is ridiculous. There's people who will feel uncomfortable seeing an interracial couple holding hands. Should they not hold hands for the consideration of others? I'm pretty sure that the woman in this scenario wanted to use the change room for the gender she identified with, not deliberately make people feel uncomfortable. I'm very confused why this is even being brought up.

From my understanding however, transgender people are tormented and embarrassed regardless of which facility they use. Being forced to shower with people and get naked in front of people and people wanting to get a "peek at the freakshow" is not something anyone should be forced to endure. Regardless of facility they use, this is still happening to them. They do not desire to be a circus show attraction like " hey take a look at the bearded lady", and what most do seek is respect and privacy from my understanding so they will not be subjected to such things. It isn't like girls are known to be nice to those who do not fit in, simply because women are not usually as violent does not mean they are any less cruel. There are more than 2 genders, and failing to recognize this has caused these issues to continue. There is not just male and female, trying to force people in to one or the other is wrong when their brain scans clearly show they are not the same as either. That is what the public should be educated on and no Trans person should be made to feel bad for not being male or female and nor should they be made to feel as if they have to be because that is all that society chose to give them to choose from. In other cultures they have more than 2 genders, they have 3, 4 or even more and they never try to force someone into a cookie cutter mold they simply do not fit in, they celebrate them for who they are instead of trying to make them choose to be someone else simply because they do not have enough " molds" available to fit them.

You should understand that in regards to facilities provided cis males and cis females are already segregated, adding additional facilities is not just segregating trans gender, it is adding them into an already segregated system. It isn't discrimination when everyone is equally segregated. However, I think the best solution would be to add privacy instead of focus on segregating due to sex. No one should be forced to get naked with anyone male or female, and privacy would resolve the core issue here.

 

[Yopaz]

have decided to confuse having body issues/social anxiety with transphobia

No, you just don't see the real issue here. I can recognize if a naked man is a biological man on sight and I can recognize a biological woman on sight when she is naked.

Now do you see where I am going with this. In the gym locker room where I get naked and I am already self conscious about my body I can recognize if someone in that room was born a woman and I am more self conscious about my body around women than men. It's not like I can go "Oh, that's a man, no worries" and keep going. I have spent years simply daring to get changed in a public locker room, I'm not going to change rapidly just because I know I should be fine with it and it's not really a big deal. It's a combination of body issues and anxiety that I am trying hard to fight. So I think it's intolerant of you to not show some understanding. This is how I feel, so don't tell me that I am confusing things here.

and falsely accused me of cherry picking and not reading your posts where it seems that's what you've been doing, but I never accused you personally of being intolerant.

You disregarded everything I said where I wish this could work, you picked out parts where I said I personally wouldn't be comfortable with it, you made it seem like I was fine excluding them while I was trying to make it clear that I wasn't in favour of that, I just chose to consider various aspects of the matter. So show me the post where you did take everything I said into concern or admit that you were cherry picking. You also said it's not about issues, it's about tolerance. So if it's either issues or intolerance and it's not issues then you are by extension saying I am intolerant.

I will say that you are very wrong

What exactly am I wrong about? My issues or my anxiety? That we should consider the emotions of multiple people? That we should try to make things as good as possible for as many as possible? That there is no easy solution to these matters? that we need to work towards a goal we can all be happy with? That logically we shouldn't have a problem with it, yet we do? These are all things I have said in my posts. These are things you have ignored.

Snip

Hey, thanks for the support, it really means a lot to me that someone shows some understanding.

 

[holy_secret]

With this logic, the gym goers should be warned about homosexuals in the changing rooms.
At the same time...yes. It would freak me out, and I wouldn't want to be changing in front of a transgendered person. I'd never do anything about it, but I certainly wouldn't like it.

I feel awful confessing this.

 

[Superlative]

I'm pretty sure they could have avoided having to take this lady's membership if they would of had a quick sit down with the freaked out chick, the transwoman, and an employe.

I get why the ciswoman is freaked out (this is some primal stuff here) but simply talking things over would probably eliminate things, as it turns 'the thing with a schlong in the wrong room' into an actual person with rights, a family, and not a threat to the ciswoman's well-being.

 

[rosac]

I guess it depends if they're locker rooms which entrance is allowed based on sex or gender?

Locker rooms are partitioned by sex, not gender or sexuality. Transitioning gender doesn't change your sex, and vise versa.

Urm, this?

Also, how the hell was she meant to know that the person was a transgender until the (trans) woman told her so... From her point of view, a dude just strolled in. I'm not saying that we need badges to identify whether you're trans or not, but I could imagine the initial contact being difficult and the women in the changing rooms reaction was normal based on what they could physically see occurring.

 

[seventy two]

Wait, simply using a change room is considered "intentionally causing discomfort for others"? Depending on how much surgery or hormone therapy you've received chances are you're going to make someone uncomfortable regardless of the gender you were born with, just like Revnak said. This woman wouldn't have been any less freaked out if it was someone born a woman who looked like a man. Seriously, I'm convinced that people want there to be a segregated transgender change room, because that is the only way they'll be able to change without anyone feeling uncomfortable (You know, except for the segregated trans people, but fuck them, they're not the majority here)

The whole idea of promoting yourself in a way that doesn't make other people uncomfortable is ridiculous. There's people who will feel uncomfortable seeing an interracial couple holding hands. Should they not hold hands for the consideration of others? I'm pretty sure that the woman in this scenario wanted to use the change room for the gender she identified with, not deliberately make people feel uncomfortable. I'm very confused why this is even being brought up.

I am not saying people should always not do something that could makes others uncomfortable, just that by doing so you should not be immune to criticism by others. By Planet Fitness allowing people to choose their changing room, there was the potential for people to disagree, that is to be expected. Some people choose to immediately dismiss the potential for this disagreement to be valid, and that is blatant favoritism. My original intent when first posting my thoughts was to comment on the fact that this kind of problem is not one that can be solved the same way each time. In some cases giving choice is the best solution but in others it may not be, but if you do not even consider the other side you are forcing people to deal with something without having a voice. Again, I am not criticizing those involved, rather the absolute nature of the poll.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

People who are uncomfortable with a person of the opposite sex seeing them naked doesn't make them a bigot, it makes them shy or modest.

Of whom would have a problem changing in public to begin with...

Them having a feeling of humiliation when someone of the opposite sex sees them naked isn't them promoting hatred, they are terribly ashamed and embarrassed.

Of which is a cultural issue, not innate psychology ... given that all the stories I read about this about what I shall hereafter refer to as 'trans panic' seemingly coming out of the US, and not anywhere else in the West so far as I can tell.

The issue is in the locker rooms people often get completely naked, and regardless of how one identifies themselves, people are going to see the penis in a room full of vagina's as being not of the same sex.

Assuming a lot there ... given that people have complained about 'trans panic' in bathrooms, despite being utterly unfounded and often based entirely on lies of people refusing trans people access to specific public spaces (like schools).

We have biological sex and we have gender and they are not the same thing, nor can they be actually treated the same way. Sex sorted facilities, much like tools such as urinals and tampons, are designed for the physical sex and are not not a " gender" product, they are a " sex" product.

That's right, we should have 800'000 segregated bathroom conditions to encompass every polypeptide combination ... plus 12 more provincial internal bathroom stalls based on womb conditions. Just to be safe. We should also have people equipped with gene scanners everywhere. It would just be simpler if trans wore the pink triangles that were given to them, but for some reason they have a problem with that.

Many of the showers in locker rooms were not designed to have privacy from others in the same locker room. Just like urinals, they are open and have people in close proximity to one another while they are in a vulnerable state of undress. Those who are shy, have religious beliefs that will not allow them to be naked in front of the opposite sex, or otherwise feel uncomfortable with having vagina's and penises in such close proximity while naked will seek alternatives and will no longer use the facilities at all, creating more sanitation issues if we have people avoiding showers and not having proper facilities to maintain proper hygiene due to not having facilities to meet their needs provided. Their needs would include being able to become naked without vagina's and penises being in close proximity, and no I do not feel that makes them a bigot, I think it just means they have a different level of modesty than I do, and it is not right for one to attempt to impose their level of modesty on others.

What?

I see facilities such as locker rooms and restrooms as in the same category as urinals and tampons that they contain, they were designed for biological sex needs, not for gender. They could replace the cute stick figure restroom signs with a vagina and a penis to clarify this. However, as I stated previously, They need more options than trying to force everyone into a male or female category, because these issues are only present because they do not have the proper facilities provided for everyone in the first place. The failing to recognize more than just male and female is what started this in the first place.

Transgender is more than just male or female, they are both. Trying to force them into one of the categorizes is the problem here.

The only people trying to do that is you. A unisex restroom configuration in addition to Men and Women would be phenomenal. Until then, it's not for you to judge what is man or woman enough to use either. Even after the introduction of unisex toilets it still wouldn't be your place to tell people how to use their toilet, given that in the legal codices of many governments across the planet the laws of toilet use are based on gender, not genetics and womb conditions. So your idea of what a toilet represents is entirely subjective. In many US states also.

Especially in such cases, given there is a shit load more grey to sex and gender than you seem to like to admit.

Barring all this, you do understand the idea of this being a cultural problem, rather than one about the philosophy of liberty or biological dislike of trans people.

It seems the US is the only country in the Westthat has a problem with trans people using the bathhroom of their gender. Given that they are gendered, not biologically 'sexed' ... given that you can have two of one, and 50'000 of the other. Dislike of trans people is culturally reinforced, it's not biological. You have trans people using bathrooms in other countries ... not a problem. As I said before, this woman would have had a problem with trans men in her bathroom situation.

She was likely going to be unhappy regardless, so long as trans people went to her gym, and whether Planet Fitness has said one way or another.

Put this into perspective.

One trans woman .... one complaint. That's all I can find ... and suddenly on the basis of one complaint you're turning around and pretending this is an issue. This exact scenario was played out in the California incident. It has nothing to do with liberty, it has to do with a surviving minority still finding trans people objectionable. That's prejudice and bigotry. This entire forum topic has been nothing but that.

Preconceived notions of what evil trans people will do if they get the bathroom bill passed in other states! Oooooooh! Trans panic ... that pretty much sums it up.

 

[HankyPanky]

Locker rooms and bathrooms, as far as I'm concerned, are separated by biological sex; or rather, by genitals. If I were in charge, I would say that if the person still has her woman parts, then she should go to the women's locker room - same with the men. If, however, they had a sex change, then they should go to whatever locker room they identify as. I would personally feel awkward if a woman walked into the men's locker room; however, if she had the appropriate operations so that she does not look like a woman, then it really wouldn't matter.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Not to sound rude, but what the hell is the point of segregating restrooms based upon gender, rather than sex? Both rooms are not the same, in male restrooms there are often urinals, whereas the female restrooms have only stalls, since urinals are not of much use.

It seems we would be better off either segregating by sex, or not segregating at all, since unisex restrooms are also an option. Segregating by something as fickle and vague as gender identity seems about as logical as segregating by whether people prefer tea or coffee.
I don't see the point in offering two versions of the same room with functions slightly tweaked for each sex, and saying you can simply go in which ever one you want.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Not to sound rude, but what the hell is the point of segregating restrooms based upon gender, rather than sex? Both rooms are not the same, in male restrooms there are often urinals, whereas the female restrooms have only stalls, since urinals are not of much use.

Law? Liberty? Fostering a society centred of self authentication rather than draconian ideas of telling people what they are without respects of the person so defined by others?

It seems we would be better off either segregating by sex, or not segregating at all, since unisex restrooms are also an option. Segregating by something as fickle and vague as gender identity seems about as logical as segregating by whether people prefer tea or coffee.

If someone told you they are a woman, I don't think there is anything vague about it. Also, nice use of pretending equivocation and subjective feelings are something based on 'logic'.

I don't see the point in offering two versions of the same room with functions slightly tweaked for each sex, and saying you can simply go in which ever one you want.

The simplest solution would be a few stalls. Not shackling people with a constant reminder how there are essentialists who feel so dearly about their right to identity, but will refuse others from the same liberty to be self-constructed. Especially given the violence trans people face, and why so very many trans people live lives entirely 'in stealth', terrified at the prospect of being outed. A concept all the more terrifying given that US states of Texas and Florida have proposed banning trans men and women from using the bathroom of their choice under penalty of imprisonment (in Texas ... I think in Florida it's a fine?).

So imagine that ... you already live in a state that is already detrimental to your rightful existence. So you go stealth. But don't you dare ever be found out ... imagine if you were? At work ... in public? People shouldn't have to fling thousands of dollars into moving just to secure equal rights to their freedom of expression. Nor should a person have be expected to just pack up and leave because they will never be treated as equals anymore due to their rightful identity.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Not to sound rude, but what the hell is the point of segregating restrooms based upon gender, rather than sex? Both rooms are not the same, in male restrooms there are often urinals, whereas the female restrooms have only stalls, since urinals are not of much use.

Law? Liberty? Fostering a society centred of self authentication rather than draconian ideas of telling people what they are without respects of the person so defined by others?

It seems we would be better off either segregating by sex, or not segregating at all, since unisex restrooms are also an option. Segregating by something as fickle and vague as gender identity seems about as logical as segregating by whether people prefer tea or coffee.

If someone told you they are a woman, I don't think there is anything vague about it. Also, nice use of pretending equivocation and subjective feelings are something based on 'logic'.

I don't see the point in offering two versions of the same room with functions slightly tweaked for each sex, and saying you can simply go in which ever one you want.

The simplest solution would be a few stalls. Not shackling people with a constant reminder how there are essentialists who feel so dearly about their right to identity, but will refuse others from the same liberty to be self-constructed. Especially given the violence trans people face, and why so very many trans people live lives entirely 'in stealth', terrified at the prospect of being outed. A concept all the more terrifying given that US states in Texas and Florida have banned trans men and women from using the bathroom of their choice under penalty of imprisonment (in Texas ... I think in Florida it's a fine?).

So imagine that ... you already live in a state that is already detrimental to your rightful existence. So you go stealth. But don't you dare ever be found out ... imagine if you were? At work ... in public? People shouldn't have to fling thousands of dollars into moving just to secure equal rights to their freedom of expression. Nor should a person have to be expected to just pack up and leave because they will never be treated as equals anymore due to their rightful identity.

You don't seem to have actually addressed my question, but rather, made various appeals to emotion. I'll ask again, what exactly is the point of segregating by gender identity rather than simply having unisex restrooms? What does segregating by gender identity actually achieve? Is it simply because people would be less likely to support unisex restrooms?

Captcha: passing lane
I swear the captcha has become sentient, judging by the number of relevant captchas recently.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You don't seem to have actually addressed my question, but rather, made various appeals to emotion. I'll ask again, what exactly is the point of segregating by gender identity rather than simply having unisex restrooms? What does segregating by gender identity actually achieve? Is it simply because people would be less likely to support unisex restrooms?

Captcha: passing lane
I swear the captcha has become sentient, judging by the number of relevant captchas recently.

Various appeals to emotion? Given that you seem to be labouring under essentialist ideas of sexual identity (going so far to call gender 'fickle' (Because that's why so many of us are killing ourselves over... must be fickle), I figured the counter to that would be basic ideas of libertarianism.

If you want me to spell it out anymore plain, I think I'll need crayons. But here goes...

Segregating by gender identity makes sense, because it treats the person as being the driver of their own fate? That it reinforces the ideal that there is no universal man or woman, and that trying to pretend like there isn't this plethora of discordances within both nature and nurture does little more than shackle people and expose them unnecessarily to violence?

Gender neutral toilets would be fantastic, but given they are less likely to proliferate in a culture that believes in essentialist ideas of bodily identification ... we should examine what is in the greatest public good.

 

[PsiChaos]

Personally, I'll go with sort of a rather blunt answer: If you still have the twig and berries, use the Men's room. Otherwise, what would be preventing someone with ill-intent just walking into the Women's room and just claiming to identify as a woman when really they're just pervs? It may seem a little rude against pre-op trans-people, but there would be some unintended consequences if people just allowed anyone to use the bathroom or locker room of whatever gender they claim to be.

 

[White Lightning]

Personally, I'll go with sort of a rather blunt answer: If you still have the twig and berries, use the Men's room. Otherwise, what would be preventing someone with ill-intent just walking into the Women's room and just claiming to identify as a woman when really they're just pervs? It may seem a little rude against pre-op trans-people, but there would be some unintended consequences if people just allowed anyone to use the bathroom or locker room of whatever gender they claim to be.

I was just about to post this myself.

Also, shouldn't places advertise that they let things like this happen? If an establishment has a policy where someone can enter whatever change room or restroom they want because they happen to feel like that gender I'd like to know, especially before signing up for a membership or something similar.

On another note, is it really that easy? I could walk into a women's change room just like that with zero consequences? Sounds like something people (such as myself) can abuse very easily.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

If you want me to spell it out anymore plain, I think I'll need crayons. But here goes...

Wow ...
I ask an honest question, and you give me scorn? Does it make you feel cleaver to be so condescending?

Segregating by gender identity makes sense, because it treats the person as being the driver of their own fate? That it reinforces the ideal that there is no universal man or woman, and that trying to pretend like there isn't this plethora of discordances within both nature and nurtures does little more than shackle people and expose them unnecessarily to violence?

Gender neutral toilets would be fantastic, but given they are less likely to proliferate in a culture that believes in essentialist ideas of bodily identification ... we should examine what is in the greatest public good.

So then you would rather unisex restrooms, and this is mainly about practicality and realism from a political stand point, rather than gender segregated restrooms being preferable to unisex?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Wow ...
I ask an honest question, and you give me scorn? Does it make you feel cleaver to be so condescending?

Given that wasn't my goal, no. But rather to illustrate the quality of talking about liberty and not talk about the frameworks of it being elementary at best, and subjective at worse.

So then you would rather unisex restrooms, and this is mainly about practicality and realism from a political stand point, rather than gender segregated restrooms being preferable to unisex?

I'd rather that gender identity be more applicable in social and legal qualities than sex at birth. It makes more sense, gives the most power to the individual, and embraces liberty of expression.

But politics are inevitables in a world that doesn't understand basic philosophy. How often do you see someone like Texan Republican Senator like Riddle wear right, white and blue in press shots, proclaiming the nature of freedom ... even whilst trying to jail people for having chromosomes that she doesn't like?

Philosophical congruence is important.

(Edit) Oh, also. There's good reasons why gender neutral toilet options should come off the back of toilets as per gender. The GLSEN did a report on how schools providing faculty based toilets to trans people rather than communicating the child is welcome to express their gender identity as fact of their self authentication leads to lessened transgender student participation in school activities.

Creating an environment of disengagement, in a world where trans children either suffer increased stigmatization for being trans or suffer greater depression for trying to hide their trans identity.

( http://glsen.org/sites/default/files/Harsh%20Realities.pdf )

We already exist in a world where transgender school students suffer huge disegagement from academia. Why should we worsen this? Particularly when someone's mental health and social engagement ranks higher than the odd person feeling discomfort because of their prejudicial treatment of others, or because of some false fear that transgeder people are going to invade toilets just to perv o other people.

Given that there are more gay people than trans, such argumentation is one step away from saying gay people should have their own accomodations.

I put it to you, for example. The California incident where a trans girl was accused (falsely) ... the school didn't care, the students didn't care ... it was one mother who didn't want their child associating with trans people at all. That didn't stop the story blaring across Fox News and PJI Websites ... despite it being proven false and fabricated. The fear is as unmerited as when people used to say they felt 'scared' by showering near gay men or women in changing rooms.

For the sake of privacy .. install a few stalls. No one is the wiser for it, and it's not as if it's horrendously expensive. If anything it would likely drive up participation in gyms and public pools and the like.

I also put it to you that toilets are not sex based in multiple countries. Australia, for instance ... the laws have always been written on the basis of gender. Which is why it took very little to get government legislation out about the rights of trans people to use the toilet in relation to their gender.

Do you know how many problems it's caused? Zero. Google it if you don't believe ... the only instance I could find is a school trying to force a trans girl to use disabled toilets, of which it backflipped on. Liberty and justice for all > prejudice. Particularly when the rhetoric used to defend said prejudicial treatment being status quo demonstrably conflicts with the cause and pursuit of liberty itself.

People need to be grown up and not treat eachother on the grounds of arbitrary reasons.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

(Edit) Oh, also. There's good reasons why gender neutral toilet options should come off the back of toilets as per gender. The GLSEN did a report on how schools providing faculty based toilets to trans people rather than communicating the child is welcome to express their gender identity as fact of their self authentication leads to lessened transgender student participation in school activities.

Creating an environment of disengagement, in a world where trans children either suffer increased stigmatization for being trans or suffer greater depression for trying to hide their trans identity.

( http://glsen.org/sites/default/files/Harsh%20Realities.pdf )

We already exist in a world where transgender school students suffer huge disegagement from academia. Why should we worsen this? Particularly when someone's mental health and social engagement ranks higher than the odd person feeling discomfort because of their prejudicial treatment of others, or because of some false fear that transgeder people are going to invade toilets just to perv o other people.

Given that there are more gay people than trans, such argumentation is one step away from saying gay people should have their own accomodations.

I put it to you, for example. The california incident where trans girl was a accused (falsely) ... the school didn't care, the students didn't care ... it was one mother of a child who didn't want there child associating with trans people at all.

I also put it to you that toilets are not sex based in multiple countries. Australia, for instance ... the laws have always been written on the basis of gender. Which is why it took very little to get government legislation out about the rights of trans people to use the toilet in relation to their gender.

Do you know how many problems it's caused? Zero. Google it if you don't believe ... the only instance I could find is a school trying to force a trans girl to use disabled toilets, of which it backflipped on. Liberty and justice for all > prejudice. Particularly when the rhetoric used to defend said prejudicial treatment being status quo demonstrably conflicts with the cause and pursuit of liberty itself.

People need to be grown up and not treat eachother on the grounds of arbitrary reasons.

I think I may have been a little unclear about what I meant. When I referred to unisex restrooms, I meant it in the context of simply doing away with male and female segregation altogether, rather than simply adding a unisex option to the mix.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think I may have been a little unclear about what I meant. When I referred to unisex restrooms, I meant it in the context of simply doing away with male and female segregation altogether, rather than simply adding a unisex option to the mix.

That could work. Honestly, I don't (personally) mind there being Men's and Women's and just adding a few stalls in either if they don't have them yet. That being said a Unisex or gender neutral toilet makes sense. Equality is the name of the game. Still I know a few other queer persons that would dig a gender neutral toilet option.

I think the state governments are preparing to roll out the funding for it, for schools and other public spaces.