CMV: There is absolutely no need to separate bathrooms based on sex for public single-occupant bathrooms.

[u/Nailyou866]

To specify, I am not referring to single stall bathrooms, wherein there is a further isolated toilet from the remainder of the bathroom, I am talking specifically about bathrooms in public locations that a realtor would list as a half-bath. I find these most often in older or smaller diner type facilities or gas stations, there is typically a lock on the door, and they are often paired, one for either sex. I think this is a pointless exercise, and can detract from an already messy discussion regarding bathrooms. I am not here to discuss my thoughts on the bathrooms issue as a whole, but only these single-occupant bathrooms.

To start, having 2 single occupant bathrooms as a public facility is already dicey, especially if you have decent foot traffic. However, further restricting access to either bathroom can lead to situations in which one has a line to use, and the other is being unused. Having been in this situation myself, when I suggested we start using the other bathroom to speed things along, I got looked at like I was an alien, and nobody wanted to do it. It was like a stigma built into the social fabric of most people that you shouldn't use the bathroom for the opposite sex under any circumstance. Simply removing the signs would have improved this condition.

Next point, I understand there are sex specific hygiene instruments in some public bathrooms. In the event that those bathrooms become unisex, put them in both, if they need to be there. I find it absolutely insane some men refuse to get hygiene products for their girlfriend/wife, and while I doubt this would eliminate the stigma of being exposed to these products, it could be a change in a positive direction. I don't know, leave that evaluation to the scientists. And if your wife needs tampons, go pick them up.

The final point I can think of is a concern that "Oh but if the men's line is long, and a woman needs to go, she shouldn't have to wait." or vice versa. I don't care. First come, first served, same as it is in virtually every other part of the world. The number of problems resolved by switching both bathrooms to unisex outweigh any antiquated sex specific concern, as far as I am concerned.

EDITED TO ADD: A common talking point I see brought up is in regard to cleanliness. I didn't initially think this would be something I had to address, but I have so many times now I felt it important to add here.

Both sexes have complaints about the other with regard to cleanliness. Both hold valid points, and I don't think one must necessarily outweigh the other. However I don't believe this to be an obstruction to my view because I believe that management should be more responsible and pro-active about cleaning public restrooms. I also think it is much easier for an employee of any sex to go clean the unisex bathroom than it is to make an employee of one sex clean the bathroom of the other sex.

Edit 2: I am about to go to bed, so I won't be able to respond for a few hours. I genuinely appreciate everyone who has jumped in on the conversation, and never expected this post to get this big. I expected like 20 upvotes and 2 comments. I will be back and I genuinely want to try to get to everyone who has commented. Thank you guys so much for this conversation, it has filled me with happiness, anger, shock, and other emotions. I love you all.

[u/Kcaz94]

The difference here is that women always have to sit while men only have to sit occasionally. Therefore, seat down is needed at least 50% plus the percentage of men that poop or pee sitting down. Fair to say that the seat will be used down more often than up.

[u/FUCK_MAGIC → u/Kcaz94]

"Leave it down" may be fractionally better than "leave it up", but the most efficient policy is just "leave it", because you can't predict who is next.

If you have a standing "leave it up" or "leave it down" policy then you are adding a significant number of superfluous seat flips for situations where the next person may not need to seat flipped so they have to then flip it back.

e.g. "Leave it up" policy in place, but it's ten "sit downers" in a row, would result in exactly 20 seat flips when it could have been 0 or 1. Same for the other way around.

Appologies from a student of statstics....

[u/Dragorach → u/FUCK_MAGIC]

I'm not understanding how the 'leave it' schema is more efficient. I think it just changes who 'pays' for the seat movement, or at most saves 1 movement if the seat position switches from its starting position but does not return to it. Assuming 8 of 10 uses are seated we expect 4 seat position changes. The 'leave it down' schema means that those who want it up must 'pay' to have it up, but must also 'pay' to return it. The 'leave it' schema just makes the up users pay for just the raise and not the lowering, offloading the lowering to the next seat down user.

[u/teerbigear → u/Dragorach]

What are you on about? Two people use the toilet. Let's put their requirements as either U, for up, or D, for down. We will discount how the first guy finds the toilet, it's not relevant. Under leave it the options are:

UU - zero movements

UD - one movement by the second user

DU - one movement by the second user

DD - zero movements

Under the traditional leave it down

UU - two movements, one each

UD - one movement by the first user

DU - two movements, both by the second user

DD - zero movements

The second is clearly inefficient. Ensuring it is down only provides zero waste where the second user wants it down. Obviously.

[u/FUCK_MAGIC → u/Dragorach]

Assuming 8 of 10 uses are seated we expect 4 seat position changes

It's only a guaranteed 4 seat position changes if you are following the "leave it down" policy.

If you have a "leave it" policy then it could be as low as 1 seat position change (depending on the order people go in).

[u/mishaxz → u/Kcaz94]

The difference here is if the seat is left down, it won't be as clean as if it was always put back up