- cross-posted to:
- political_weirdos@lemmy.world
- aiop@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- political_weirdos@lemmy.world
- aiop@lemmy.world
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.
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.
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”.
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.