Dear,

To understand the scope of this issue you must go beyond how it "feels" to share a bathroom with a tranny. This is small potatoes compared to the chaos that this will cause!

First, consider the fact that in any place, bathrooms for women are equipped quite differently from the men's rooms. Women get more stalls, while men usually have much fewer stalls but with urinals in their place. Why is that? It's not because men are happier peening next to other men - it's because our anatomies permit us to piss and be done with it in an efficient manner. We don't even have to undo our belts. Whether you perceive yourself as a man or woman doesn't matter here - the question is, can you make use of a urinal to pee, or not?

There's no problem allowing trannies with men parts into women's rooms - they're just inconveniencing themselves. But there will be issues when "men" with vaginas (or new penises they're not quite adapt at handling yet) decide to use the men's room. Clearly they can't pee at a urinal, so they have to take up a stall just to piss. Meanwhile there're only a few stalls (because it's the MEN's room) so the men who have to take big manly shits now have to wait in line because some dude is wiping his vagina after making tinkle into the toilet. Next thing you know, there're going to be huge lines outside of men's rooms just like there are outside the ladies', and who needs that?

I've noticed that when bathrooms are unisex, the issues of the line that piss women off become a little more clear to the men.

Oh stop it. First of all, the issues are "clear" anyway, and second, all men have to suffer with the "I am done peeing already but my girlfriend is still in the damn line" situation at least sometimes, so stuff it with the sympathy plea.

Second, we're all human beings, and a "fair" bathroom system gets the most human beings through it as possible in as short an amount of time as possible. This is quite analogous to the scheduling issues in computer science. Here's an example.

Let's say it takes a man a minute to enter a bathroom, piss, wash his hands, and leave. Let's say it takes a woman 5 minutes to do the same. Let's say there's one bathroom only, and it can only be used by one person at a time. Both man and woman arrive at the door at the same time:

Situation 1:
Woman goes first, man goes second.
Woman completes her pee at T+5, man goes in and completes his pee at T+6.
The average time from arrival to completion if (5 + 6) / 2 = 5.5 minutes.

Situation 2:
Man goes first, woman goes second.
Man completes at T+1, woman completes at T+6. Although the last urinator finished at the same time as in situation 1, the average time from arrival to completion is (1 + 6) / 2 = 3.5

The scheduling issues become clearer as there're more and more people in the equation. For example, if there're 5 men and a woman, if the woman goes first,5 people will have to wait over 5 minutes. If the men go before the woman, only one person has to wait 5 minutes.

In general, lacking any other heuristic, the optimal scheduling approach (with respect to throughput) is "shortest job first" so in a unisex situation, fairness would suggest that men who have to pee be "inserted" in the beginning of the queue. However, this could lead to a form of resource 'starvation' for women  if there're more and more men arriving that need to be urinated, so that the women would possibly never get a go.

In order to be NICE TO WOMEN, society has segregated bathrooms by gender instead of using the "shortest job first" approach above. That means that even though you have to contend for resources with other women, who each take 3 minutes to even prepare to pee, at least there're no men in your equation to take priority over you.

So I'd advise you not to pine for the unisex system because the only way to make that system actually work on large scale is to make women wait longer.

Although to be fair, in college I was in some bar that had those stupid single bathrooms - one for men and one for women.  The women's line was insane.  The men's was nothing and the women were getting madder and madder - finally three of us decided to use the men's and unfortunately, there was this poor guy in there; we told him don't worry, we won't look (wasn't like he had a choice because he was already in the middle of peeing - I remember his back stiffening up when we barged in) and when we let him out, we locked the door.  Guy probably didn't like it but it gets to a point when you gotta go - you gotta go.

When you say "single bathroom", do you mean a small room with a single toilet (and perhaps a urinal in the men's to save water)?  And three of you barged in while a guy was using it?  How does this not make you a colossal asshole?  Sure, when there's a big line go ahead and line up for the men's.  That's not the same as walking in on a guy when he's peeing.

Furthermore, the issue here is not about adequate facilities for each gender, it's about one thing only: women are slow.  You could have three times as many toilets in the women's as the men's and the line would still stretch out the door.  And the reason for that is urinals.

The urinal is a brilliant invention. It is not merely designed to be used swiftly and efficiently, but also to encourage that behaviour. There is nothing fun or comfortable about using a urinal. Unlike the carpeted stalls smelling of potpourri, and magazine racks in the ladies room, sometimes the urinal is just one big trough stretching the length of the room, with a drain at one end. And sometimes that drain gets blocked.

What women need is a female version of the urinal. Something with no door, preferably no wall, and a big ol' helping of shame. Maybe just a slightly lower version of The Trough, or maybe something as simple as a bunch of toilets in the middle of a big open room.

Or maybe the whole restroom could be a urinal. This could go for the men's room too, incidentally. You just put a metal grill floor over a waterproof tank and let people do their business wherever there's room. I'd bet it would be even more efficient than The Trough.

--
Bite the hand.

This business of the long lines leading to the ladies room, compared to what awaits men is something John Banzhaf III took among his personal crusades back in the 90s.  Since then, most of the new construction arenas and stadiums being constructed allow for a more even ratio of ladies' facilities to men's.  There will likely never be a one for one ratio of men's facilities to women's because of something pointed out in this article -- men can take care of micturation at a urinal, women must have a stall to do any of their business.  And, even though the ratio of square footage is likely the same between men's and women's rooms at arenas and stadiums, the space requirements for urinals is much smaller than the space requirements for toilets.

At any rate, you might say that Banzhaf should be looked at as a hero to women everywhere -- especially those at modern arenas and stadiums.  Others, who oppose some of the other personal crusades he has taken on, have less than positive things to say about him.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

But won't you be pleased when the Female-to-Male folk get the heck out of your line, and go to the men's room instead?  My solution to long bathroom lines is to develop bladder control.  I'm always boggled by the women who go to the bathroom four times during a play.  Drink less & get better bladder control people!

Thalia

The anti-veil argument boils down to anti-veilers demanding that muslim women change their mode of dress to assuage the sense of comfort of the anti-veilers.  The pro-TG arguments are similar--If you're uncomfortable by someone of the opposite sex being around your exposed bits and pieces, then it's your problem for being so uptight, and you are the one who needs to change.

But are they similar? By your own wording, it doesn't appear that way. If the AV'ers want Muslim women to remove the veil in order for the AV'ers to feel more comfortable, then wouldn't the logical analogy be that those same people would be opposed to the TG argument because they would favor their own comfort?