By jes. on February 23, 2017
WASHINGTON, DC (Herald de Paris) — ¬†President Donald Trump’s recent repeal of federal protection for transgender students Means it is time to stop thinking about the way we look at people, and start re-thinking the way we look at restrooms.
There is no long-standing rule about male and female public restroom facilities. ¬†In fact, the first “Potty Parity” code regulations requiring the same number of restrooms for women as there are for men were not put on the books until 1989. ¬†Until 1964, segregated bathrooms were law. ¬†Public indoor plumbing, in general, has only existed since 1851. ¬†When it was first introduced it was considered unsanitary. ¬†The Americans with Disabilities Act, requiring accessible facilities for handicapped or disabled people want only signed into law in 1990.
So why the stink (Pun intended) over transgender bathrooms? ¬†By the numbers, approximately 19% of the American population is disabled. ¬†By comparison, of the 4 million American births per year, a staggering one out of every 1500 fall somewhere between clinically prototypically male or female. ¬†Indeed, by scientific definition MALE and FEMALE describe polar ends of a very broad spectrum.
Thus, the problem isn’t in how we look at people, the problem is with how we look at bathrooms.
The simplest solution is to designate a certain number of restrooms in any public facility as shared, or undefined. ¬†In the late 90s such wisdom gained popularity in the development of Family Restrooms, where parents could change diapers, or assist a family member of the opposite sex, or people with public restroom anxieties could find some peace.
Thus, there are simple solutions being employed already, really only one group might oppose the “Family” or general neutral public restroom from being written into federal law, developers. ¬†Potty Parity and ADA regulations have already cost developers millions in the past 20 years. ¬†A federal mandate to add even more restroom facilities per square foot eats directly into developer profits per square foot.
So let’s not look at yesterday’s decision by President Trump as an attack on the LGBTQ community. ¬†Instead, let’s look at it as another example of a cheapskate developer trying to maximize his profits.