South Western’s elected school board is making some strange decisions.
For the last two years, they’ve fixated on which bathrooms LGBTQ+ kids use. In 2023, officials in this Hanover-area district played musical chairs with school bathrooms in a misguided attempt to appease the loudest bigots among them — ending up with five different types of bathrooms.
After a low-turnout school board election in which several far-right members joined their ranks, they hired a Christian law firm, decided to begin banning books and reopened the bathroom issue. Board President Matthew Gelazela, who was elevated to his post after previously serving as the board’s most vocal bomb-thrower, pointed to Red Lion’s discriminatory policies as something to aspire to.
Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.
You’ve always got to show up for those school board elections now. Every. Single. Time.
Or live in Houston and the governor can just strip your School Board of power, then install an unelected bureaucrat to loot the school treasury.
Mmmmm Texasy
Texussy
Just say Texas Pussy
Your generation and the reluctance to say Pussy is abhorring.
Bussy = Butt Pussy. Clussy = Clown Pussy. Its real easy, barely even saves letters to shorten it in the first place, and it works for other short words with vowels too: roof pussy, cow pussy, rent pussy, trans pussy, truck pussy.
You fuckinussy.
Tread on me, daddy.
Yeah we’re the freest state in the union as long as your chosen freedom conforms with the Republican agenda.
These are the people who continually call everyone on the left “groomers” and taking an unhealthy interest in kids? The same people cutting peepholes into school bathrooms?
Anyone who shows up to a school board meeting to complain about bathrooms should automatically have the police sent to look at their hard drive. If you’re that concerned about the bathroom habits of young children, the cops really need to look at your internet history and the contents of your hard drive.
Drag wants to complain about bathrooms at schools. If we segregate the bathrooms at schools, we’re teaching kids that segregation is okay. We should be preparing the next generation to have less hangups and weird behaviour than we do. The kids already all have mixed gender bathrooms at home. They won’t think anything of desegregating bathrooms, and it’ll create a less sexist society.
If you’re gonna talk about desegregating bathrooms I think it’s important to talk about designing bathrooms for greater privacy as well. Ideally you don’t want a bunch of urinals lined up across from the sink / common area with no dividers in a desegregated bathroom. It’s a bad idea to just remove the signs on existing public bathroom designs and say anything goes.
Also, why do you keep referring to yourself in the 3rd person?
Drag isn’t referring to dragself in the third person. Drag has person independent pronouns. Most people have first, second, and third person pronouns for subject, object, and possessive. That’s 9 pronouns. Drag just has one. Much simpler and easier to remember.
Who is this “Drag” that you keep referring to?
Drag would appreciate it if you used drag’s second person neopronouns instead of saying “you”. Drag only has one pronoun, so it’s very simple to use and easy to remember, and drag’s pronoun is in drag’s display name.
Oh, I see you’re just trolling. Carry on.
For most people what’s familiar is easier to remember than what’s simpler. Personally I find drag’s comments difficult to parse. I’ll respect drag’s wishes regarding how drag wants to be referred to, but I expect drag’s going to have a lot of friction even with very tolerant and accepting people if drag insists on that pronoun choice.
This video might be helpful for drag. I know the title is a bit clickbaity but I promise the person in the video is also tolerant and accepting.
Edit: I went through and replaced all instances of you/your with drag. I think this is illustrative of the problem with drag’s approach. If everyone has to expend great effort simply to interact with drag in a respectful manner then that will lead to people becoming frustrated with drag. While drag’s identity is entirely drag’s business and no one else’s, drag’s insistence on a difficult/unfamiliar pronoun is a choice, and drag could make drag’s life easier by loosening up.
Drag finished watching the video pretty much. 3 minutes left and it seemed like she was winding down. Drag was already familiar with all the main content Jones covered. Drag thinks she’s probably underestimating the knowledge of linguistics literacy on the left because she’s from a more right leaning culture, where the “left wing” people local to that area are who would be considered moderates in other places. She used a right wing name for the left wing, so drag thinks she hasn’t actually immersed herself in left wing political culture enough to understand it.
With regard to the argument that using new pronouns is hard, drag understands and already knew her arguments. But drag thinks Jones neglected to consider the impact of neuroplasticity. Adapting to neopronouns is a skill. People with lots of practice get it faster and with less effort. Drag’s presence on Lemmy is challenging people and causing them to learn. Expanding minds. Just like the linguist with the N word pronouns. Drag picked new pronouns for this account as an experiment. Drag likes the new pronouns. Drag made revisions when an idea didn’t work, and now drag sometimes uses drag/dragself pronouns in conversation with drag’s friends and family off of Lemmy. They make drag feel dragony.
Drag’s identity is a conversation.
EDIT: Also, drag just remembered Jones’ point about misgendering trans people in conversation with people who know less. Well, drag has been in that situation. Drag was out to everyone and presenting full time, and even though drag’s mother struggled with drag’s pronouns, drag felt like she was finally getting it and understanding. She hadn’t misgendered drag in nearly a year. Well, then drag overheard drag’s mother in the next room he/him-ing drag to drag’s elderly grandfather. And drag felt like shit. Drag’s grandfather is in his 90s and he’s an asshole. He’s never going to accept drag. And drag had accepted that, and decided to just ignore him until he died. But when drag’s mother, who had been making all that progress, he/him-ed drag to the grandfather, drag suddenly realised that drag didn’t know if she had been misgendering drag behind drag’s back all the time. Drag realised that drag would never be able to trust that she was actually making an effort to respect drag, or if she was just appeasing drag to drag’s face. So drag moved out of home and cut contact with her. And drag is going to ignore her until she dies too. That’s not the only reason for our bad relationship, but it was a point where everything crystallised and drag decided to stop making excuses for her.
I appreciate that drag took the time to watch the whole video and I think drag is probably right about Jones’ cultural background, as it is similar to mine. I only meant to help make drag’s life easier if that’s something drag was having trouble with, but I respect that drag already understood the friction that drag’s neopronoun creates and made an informed choice to use it on lemmy.
Also, nice Steven Universe clip. That’s a show that helped me understand people like drag and is why I have the patience to engage with drag despite the very conservative cultural context I live in.
Drag will watch the video, but drag wonders why the title uses a right wing name for the right wing, and a right wing name for the left wing. The video could use each side’s name for themselves, or each side’s name for the other side. But only using right wing terms makes it seem like the video has a right wing bias. Drag will still watch, but drag will do so with critical thinking.
I noticed that too when I first came across the video, but after becoming more familiar with this person’s content I saw that they lean progressive/inclusive and the title is like that probably just for the sake of clickbait or because they’re coming from a more centrist/liberal perspective and aren’t as familiar with leftist terminology.
I still think their perspective as a linguist is worth hearing.
Drag is 9 minutes into the video and Jones is saying that using neopronouns is easier than people make it out to be. Drag agrees and drag told you so. Drag also already knew what a pronoun is. Drag has yet to encounter new information, apart from Zulu’s 16 grammatical genders
If drag keeps watching the next point he makes is the exact inverse, namely that neopronouns are also harder than many people make them out to be. Specifically when he talks about the processing cost that is incurred by using even standard/traditional pronouns in certain ways. The parts of the video I thought would be most helpful are in his conclusion, so I do recommend watching to the end.
The part I believe is helpful starts at 15:10
Every accusation is an admission. Never forget it.
Yep, the people whose entire personality is combating the “woke liberal left”.
You know, the people they portray is foaming at the mouth woke crusaders. When in actuality, 95% of left voters consist of people who don’t give a shit about all this besides listening to the oppressed minorities problems and proposed solutions, and showing the smallest amount of empathy.
“Oh damn, I didn’t realize you dealt with that shit. Yeah, ok, gender neutral bathrooms are cool. Whatever you need, doesn’t bother me.”
Right: “screeeeeeeee!!!”
“Guys, guys… If we just hurt these kids enough, it will force them back into the closet and we’ll get to pretend LGBTQ+ kids don’t exist!” - These assholes, probably
That’s the plan. Ostracize to literal death and pretend it’s an unfortunate side-effect that following a god (more specifically, their god) will fix.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s not the substance of the issue that matters at all, it’s the taboo. Accepting these kids diminishes their kink, they’re not being naughty if it’s socially acceptable and wheres the fun in that.
These are really fucking weird and dangerous people.
Whoever approved this is clearly very weird.
Yeah, is this not like blatantly pedophilic? Very weird
pedophilic
And yet, I don’t see any evidence of drag queen or gay involvement.
Nothing new here lol. Every accusation etc etc
😆
I’m betting there is some sort of legal prohibition against creating a mixed-gender restroom, and the way they are getting around it is by declaring only the toilet stalls to be restrooms. With the window into the area of the sinks, that area is a public space, and can’t legally be considered part of the restroom.
So long as the toilets are in actual rooms with floor to ceiling walls and actual doors (not the bullshit stalls we typically use in the US), and those rooms don’t have windows, this isn’t as terrible an idea as it initially seems.
They have already created gender neutral restrooms, according to the article these windows are not in those.
There’s 2 stalls visible in the picture. The walls are not floor to ceiling, the doors have larger gaps above and though it isn’t visible, I expect also a gap below. It’s not clear if there are vertical visibility slits on the sides of the doors. But they’re clearly just stalls really.
But it doesn’t really matter how the stalls are, the way that we know that this is targeted spite and bullying, is that windows are being cut only in a specific subset of the restrooms. They’re trying to shame and intimidate the kids that are in those restrooms.
Possible.
It’s also possible that the stalls do provide an adequate degree of privacy, coming very close to the floor, and sufficiently high enough to prevent people from seeing inside. They certainly don’t look like the stalls my school used.
Frankly, if their intention is to shame and intimidated, I’m rather surprised they are going to this much effort, when they could just not do anything at all.
Do we know that the other, gender-neutral restrooms are similarly communal? Is it possible that they are single-user facilities with sinks, and need only appropriate signage to make them inclusive?
I’ve stopped giving USA republicans the benefit of doubt years ago, Trump’s first year in office was enough to convince me. I’ve accepted that they are comically evil and that they have no redeeming qualities. So if I see something that is comically evil, then I’m not going to invent possibilities of why it might not be as bad, because in my experience it will turn out that after a little digging, it’s actually worse.
Also the administration was given the opportunity to justify or explain their actions by the reporter, and they chose not to, most likely not because they didn’t want to, but because they couldn’t do so in a matter that did not make them appear like spiteful bigots. There’s no point in inventing possible defenses for them if they could not provide them themselves.
Republicans don’t have five types of bathrooms. Republicans have two. That alone should tell you that the Republicans aren’t actually in control here.
What is actually happening is that the Republicans are trying to get rid of the “gender inclusive” restroom, and revert it to boys only. They don’t want 5 kinds of restrooms. They want two.
After reading some more, it turns out the Republicans are claiming the area outside the stalls is a “changing area”, and the law prohibits coed changing areas. Be “inclusive” of more than one gender in a “changing area”, and you violate the law.
Changing areas don’t have public-facing windows. Areas with public-facing windows aren’t changing areas. Without the window, the Republicans get to make it a boys-only room. With the window to the sinks - not the toilets - it is not a changing area, and the Republican argument fails.
Seems reasonable and likely, but that’s not what people here want they want an enemy they can pretend is pure evil so they can feel good about themselves
It’s also possible…
As someone so eloquently said; maybe one if my pigs just shat a gold nugget (gotta check that out, right)
Read up on it some more, from a less biased source. The Republicans want this to be a boy’s room. The law prohibits coed changing rooms. Be “inclusive” of multiple genders in a room that qualifies as a “changing room”, and you violate the law.
Changing rooms don’t have windows. Put in a window, and the area can’t be considered a changing room. Since it isn’t a changing room, the Republican argument fails, and they don’t get to get rid of the gender inclusive restroom entirely. You still have privacy while you are using the toilet. You don’t have privacy while you are washing your hands.
So in this case, you might want to figure out where your pig has been eating and stake a claim.
the windows help “[add] privacy in the toilet facility”
???
I don’t think these school board members have enough privacy in their homes.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, Republican bullshit is still Republican bullshit.
Right, Windows never added privacy.
deleted by creator
I understand it now!
The window looks over the sink area where you would wash your hands after ensuring you are dressed and decent upon leaving the private stall.
The idea is by having the window in the wash area, students will be hyperconscious that this is not a private space, and they will be mindful to move into the truly private stall before starting their private business.
I think it’s purely to avoid the following example;
The number of times I’ve stepped into a public restroom because I needed to fix something privately - my stockings are rolling down, a bandaid on my upper thigh needs replacing, my bra strap is coming loose. These are things that are private but not as private as using the toilet, so often I’ll just fix these things up while I’m at the sink area, I don’t need a stall.
But if someone walks in while I’m fixing my stockings, well they didn’t consent to seeing so much of my upper thigh when they turned the corner, and while I personally don’t care that they saw me, I can see how a teenage girl might be deeply upset if this happened because she absent mindedly forgot that the sink area is not truly private.
Spooky I think it’s to constahtkt remind the students that onky the stalls are truly private.
It’s a misguided, and potentially harmful way to do this though…
Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.
Anyone want to take a bet that someone at the law firm or on the school board, really loves to sexual assault children?
Do all these weirdos have gendered bathrooms in their homes? Just install single person non gendered bathrooms or floor to ceiling stalls and non connected sinks and be done with it.
I point out that communal bathrooms are the problem every time this type of nonsense shows up
I think the problem is the bigotry, personally.
From a local station.
"Our students should not consider the space outside of our stalls as private within the multiuser restrooms. Our current policy states ‘In any facility in a District school that is for use based on Gender Identity, in which a person may be in a state of undress in the presence of others, school personnel shall provide private changing areas for use.’ Areas between our stalls and sinks in multiuser restrooms are not private changing areas under that policy.
Just fucking WOW. I guess we should check their assholes next.
Ok, I’ll explain that a little better: the place where you take a shit is a private space. The place where you wash your hands is a public space.
In a normal restroom, it is permissible to be partially undressed outside of the stalls, but within the hand washing area of the restroom, as that can be considered a changing area, like a locker room.
With the addition of the window, there is no longer a place that can be considered a “changing area” outside the stalls. If they built proper walls and used proper doors for the “stalls”, they just made some private restrooms next to some public sinks.
This is to alienate or ostracize a certain group. They don’t care that someone might change in that area. They want it to fail.
Since you only have a reference from tv about other places outside the US, Germany has unisex bathrooms. It is a place to shit and piss. If you want to change, knock yourself out. However in the US we have tiny doors that you can easily see around. Privacy is not high on our list.
The Republicans do, indeed, want to get rid of these bathrooms, and revert them to boys rooms. If they controlled the board, that is exactly what they would have. The fact that they have 5 different types of restrooms tells me the Republicans aren’t the ones making the decisions; the board is accommodating the students.
The Republicans are using a law prohibiting coed changing rooms. They are claiming the area outside the stalls qualifies as a changing area, and they have precedence to support that designation. If it is a changing area, the gender inclusive restroom violates the law. They do, indeed, want it to fail, which it will do if the issue goes to court while that law is in place.
Unless they can prove that the area outside the stalls is not a changing area. Changing areas don’t have public-facing windows. It can’t be an illegal, coed changing area if it has a public-facing window.
Germany has unisex bathrooms.
That is exactly what they made here. Each stall is now considered a unisex bathroom, and the hand washing area is no longer a “changing area”.
It is a place to shit and piss. If you want to change, knock yourself out. However in the US we have tiny doors that you can easily see around.
Does this particular room use typical semi-private partitions, or have they switched to some sort of wall or full partition that offers actual privacy? The photo shows only the window; it does not provide a good view of the stalls.
You are missing the major point. They are only doing it to one group (singling out). Imagine if they cut a window into the female’s bathroom and determined the outside was not considered private? How about they cut windows to all the bathrooms and make all as just bathrooms. Like you do at your house, unless you have a men’s and women’s bathrooms.
Not all communal restrooms have stall partitions suitable for that plan. Nor do they need them if the area outside the stalls is a changing area. The school does need to provide changing areas. Eliminating one unnecessarily doesn’t make sense.
The discourse around this is very confusing, especially as a non American who has never been in an American school bathroom.
What you’re describing sounds like a normal public toilet set up in my country
There’s a hallway or doorway into an open space with mirrors sinks and hand dryers, sometimes that hallway has a door to it, but often it’s just an open door frame. Sometimes they’ll put a 90 degree turn in the hall to obscure looking straight in, but not always.
Behind the sinks are private stalls. At more expensive locations they’ll have semiambulant stalls, some will even have their own sink inside the stall so that the full access toilet and wash room can be available to those who can’t ambulate.
(full access toilets and wash rooms are entirely seperate from the sink and stalls)
The sink area is often still segregated by gender at older establishments, but anyone walking past could glimpse in and see /shock fully dressed people washing their hands!
What you’re describing sounds like a normal public toilet set up in my country
From the school restrooms I’ve seen depicted in various British TV shows, there isn’t much physical difference. The only practical difference is that males, females, and various other genders might be washing hands in the same room at the same time. Now with a window to remind everyone that the sink area is a public space, and isn’t to be used as a changing area.
Yeah… Protect me from those creeps watching my kid in the bathroom… wait…
You only need two types of bathrooms. One for standing while peeing and the other for sitting. That’s the only way bathrooms need to be divided.
I noticed neither of your stated options has windows.
Well no…that would be weird.
Only if you’re not a fundie wack job
For a lot of women the bathroom is the only way to escape unwanted male attention.
Now it can be like an attraction at a zoo
But that’s not what bathrooms are for. I lament the state of our society that has so many women scared of men and I do what (little) I can to be a good ally.
But bathrooms are for expelling biological waste from one of three holes in the human body. And for washing afterwards. For that purpose, single occupancy toilet stalls (with floor to ceiling walls) and communal sinks is sufficient.
man from the child molester party wants windows in childrens bathrooms for totally not molester reasons.
This seems to be a pretty blatant violation of IBC chapter 21 1210.3
Dang I didn’t realize root beer has so many rules.
Sassafras, one of the main traditional ingredients in the manufacture of root beer, is carcinogenic and has been banned in the US since 1960. There are a surprising number of rules surrounding root beer.
That doesn’t seem to be a code? Are you talking about the cope lintel and I guess 2104.1.1?
*oh that’s some 2021 version change. PA is on 2018 and chapter 21 is masonry which got me to the other violation.
You can violate 2021 IBC all you want in PA because it isn’t adopted code. 2018 only cares about privacy for urinal partitions and the enclosed stalls which weren’t touched.
Oh bummer, PA sucks
Throwing out codes when you don’t know any details about the situation is classic lemmy brain
Hot take
starting to think the anti trans crusaders are just paedophiles looking to legitimise paedophilia.
Pedo-con theory is a “theory”, like the theory of Gravity is “only a theory.”
In case anyone else was wondering how they came up with 5 types of bathroom:
bathrooms for males assigned as male at birth, females assigned as female at birth, males based on gender identity, females based on gender identity, and private, single-use bathrooms for all students to use.
the fact they have the space for all of that means they have the space to eliminate communal bathrooms altogether
It sounded like that’s their current “problem.”. Since it’s the adults with agendas that are doing the only complaining, the kids are just using whatever bathroom is most convenient, so CIS kids are using the Identify as X bathroom because they don’t care, they just need to use a damn bathroom. I took it as that’s why they want the windows in the non CIS bathrooms.
I feel stupider for having to try to explain this like it makes any sense. Just have single, unisex bathrooms already like everyone has at home!
…those don’t even remotely work to serve all genders.
I still wouldn’t technically be able to pee anywhere if I was a student at that school (other than the single stall room…why not just have a bunch like that?)
