Hacker News Reader

Comment by chmln | Hacker News Reader

Great read.

However, he lost me at

> Googley to stand up for diversity and inclusion, such as protesting against binary gendering on toilets

Is it Google's business? Why should Google be involved? Why cater to 0.6% of the population, at the expense of convenience for the 99.4%?

At my last job we had "non-binary", "all-inclusive" bathrooms. They're just awkward. Not the stalls themselves, but having to share the bathroom with females, who would also rather have their separate, female bathroom.

View on HN

Yes, it is, but I think the implementation matters. In my building on the Google Kirkland campus, we have men's and women's bathrooms in a few different places, and also one place where there's 5 single-occupancy unisex bathrooms and one mother's room. It's great! It doesn't take any space away from the other bathrooms, and it accommodates people who are uncomfortable in the cisgender multi-person bathrooms for whatever reason (maybe they're somewhere in the QUILTBAG or maybe there's totally unrelated physical or psychological reasons they prefer single-occupancy restrooms).

My understanding is that we're not trying to strike down all the barriers and make all toilets unisex, but there definitely are people who are working to make sure that every building has at least one of those unisex single-occupancy bathrooms, for people who need it. It doesn't cost Googlers anything except at most a couple of conference rooms.

Honestly, its largely a non-issue. Presenting people with choice and accommodating e.g. mothers is common sense.

It is the fact of protesting such matters at work that threw me off in the first place. Opinions shouldn't be crammed down people's throats.

If the protest was about the lack of such choice, at the time, then this is still compatible with what you're suggesting is common sense.

> and one mother's room.

As a primary-carer father raising a toddler I don't like that terminology. I'd prefer that they'd just call it a Lactating Room rather than trying to be coy and seemingly indicating a preference for one parent.

If you are a lactating male then you are in a very small minority. Why not just "baby care room"?

I think you're making the reverse of his point.

It's named a "mother's room" because it's for feeding/pumping, and so it's an attempt to offer privacy to people lactating. He's objecting to the name's failure to properly convey that, suggesting that (like putting changing tables solely in women's rooms) it reinforces the (harmful to both genders) assumption that childcare is a female task.

Which is to say - a "baby care room" is also a good idea, but it would be a room with a different use. The proposed name change was about making the name conform to the current intent of the room.

single unisex stalls are great because they also accommodate for people who prefer them for any reason, without out requiring political or clinical validation of those reasons.

Yes, the treatment of their employees in the workplace is very much Google's business. Accomodating LGBT employees is not only the right thing to do, it's also supported by many of the binary/cisgender/straight/non-queer/what have you employees at workplaces like Google.

It's a good deal more than 0.6% at Google, fyi. And the toilets in question aren't stall toilets, they're room toilets, like you'd see in a smaller restaurant.

I doubt that strongly.

In fact - it's considerably less than 0.6% in real life.

The manner in which they calculate 'non gender binary' is really, really soft - i.e. 'if don't feel entirely male or female' you can often be included in that group.

Hell, I'm a pretty straight white dude, but I don't feel 'fully male' 100% of the time!

Moreover - most trans people are actually still 'binary' - they still identify as one or the other.

I'm inclined to agree that Google has more of share of people who are not binary, but in reality, the number is really, really small. Much smaller than 0.6%.

Have you never been in a place with unisex toilets?

In Australia, many offices, pubs and clubs have 'unisex toilets' which are basically just a whole bunch of small individual stalls with toilets + basin. Most of the time it isn't necessarily about being progressive, just cost saving and practicality.

I am in Australia, and have never come across "unisex toilets". Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, but I think you suggest a room of stall that can be used by all genders. I think by law however, there needs to be an "accessible" bathroom. This will be a single room which would likely fulfil the role.

Why cater to 0.6% of the population, at the expense of convenience for the 99.4%?

Do all those 99.4% of people consider it an "expense"? A lot of people are happy to make a small sacrifice if it greatly benefits other people.

Very fair point, but what about the fraction of people who not only consider it an expense, but an affront to moral dignity? For example, Politico did a poll which showed that 46% of Americans believe that everyone should use the bathroom of their birth. Should their comforts be sacrificed for the sake of 0.6% of the population?

"Believed that they should" is not necessarily the same as "affronted if they don't".

There are, for example, a number of people who would not get an abortion, but believe in the right of others to doso.

But does it matter in that context? Does/should a belief be weighted higher if it causes "offense" - this would mean the easily offended would have their beliefs weighed higher, and thus people would be encouraged to be so.

I don't think a belief should be necessarily weighted higher because it causes offense (or not), no.

I was trying to indicate the difference between "I would never" and "no one should ever" - the former being a belief that attempts to say nothing about what other people should or should not do, where the latter certainly says something about what everyone should do.

Doesn't the former lack the moral principle of universalism?

This issue is separate from whether bathrooms should be unisex

If people do things that have no material impact on you, and yet you believe are a "moral affront" then you don't understand where your liberty ends and someone else's begins. Those people need to learn that lesson, and then get over themselves.

You don't get to impose your morality on other people. Morality is a personal belief, and nothing more. It's that simple.

In a previous job we had a small office with just 4 toilets. About 10% of employees were female. There had originally been 2/2 male/female toilets but that was changed to 2 male, 1 female, and 1 unisex toilet. That worked well in practice.

So I agree that unisex toilets can be a good idea, but it's a different matter to protest against binary gendering on toilets. I wouldn't like to work for a company that partakes in politics.

What exactly is so awkward about sharing a bathroom with females?

It's like no-one saw Ally McBeal in the 90s.

I'm a little disturbed that "Googli[ness]" involves both reasonable, sociable behavior and attitudes, but also leftist principles such as the above, as it might then serve to conflate the two.

In SF office, the Unisex toilets are nicer and more spacious.

I would ask you why is this singled out of an article that covers a large range of ideas. Your mask is now off.

>but having to share the bathroom with females

The fact this comment is not gray having such overt misogyny speaks poorly of HN as a tech community. This is what keeps women out of tech.

Mods, please delete this.

Explain you point of view rather than calling for censorship. No, its not obvious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com