[HelloNurse]

Supporting "binary gendering" on toilets means deliberately troubling one's transsexual, queer etc. colleagues; not only hurting their feelings with a constant reminder that they are misfits, but concretely allowing obnoxious people to attack them because they are guilty of using the "wrong" restroom.

Such an attitude, although less harmful than many more common workplace problems, is so high on the jerk scale that I cannot imagine how it could be considered a political issue. It's as absurd as asserting one's right to drive while drunk.

[Chris2048]

I'll add another thing; Policy needn't automatically be inferred/interpreted to a philosophy, or vice-versa.

For example, I don't believe there is a fixed age where a person magically develops the facilities to make sexual choices. However, I do support a fixed, explicit age of consent - A legal parameter only needs to be practical.

[Veelox]

I want to start this by saying I think it is wrong for a person to be attacked in any manner for their citizenship in a protected class. At the same time, I think all protected classes should be fair game for critical discussion on the pros and cons of belonging to that specific class.

With my opening comment in mind, what if I reject your premise and believe that ones gender should match their sex? Is it not a political issue when a portion of the population believe transgenderism is alright and another portion believe differently?

I feel like the standard for what counts as "diversity and inclusion" is skewed. There is no problem with an atheist opening being critical of religion. Yet I cannot openly critique the merits of anything in the LGBTQQIP2SAA community.

Is the end goal that everyone has the "right" answer to specific questions and no one has hurt feelings or is the end goal that an open honest dialog between radically different viewpoints can happen where all parties are respected regardless of the topic being discussed or who is involved in the discussion? Someone please chime in if they disagree but I see a lot of former happening and only lip service being paid to the later.

[HelloNurse]

My "premise" is that going out of one's way to make someone feel miserable is evil, and therefore unisex toilets in the workplace are nice. Where the transsexual, queer etc. employees who care are abundant rather than hypothetical, as appears to be the case at Google, unisex toilets are practically important rather than a symbolic gesture.

I don't see not being evil as a controversial issue, with "radically different viewpoints" deserving "open honest dialog".

Unisex toilets are just a simple and inexpensive way to be not evil; unfortunately touching the subject of gender is a strong temptation for many people to divert the discussion towards the most toxic and horrible politically correct or intolerant ideas.

If your premise is considering "protected classes" rather than people and discussing "transgenderism" as if it were abstract you are clearly not thinking about the comfort and well-being of your coworkers.

[Veelox]

One of your premises is that there is nothing wrong with being transgender. I disagree. Does that make me evil? Does voicing that cause my coworkers so much misery that I cannot say it?

[Chris2048]

> Such an attitude

But you just made it up? Don't you mean "such an interpretation" - you can fashion a narrative around any belief.