To say that requiring one to use bathroom plumbing that corresponds with their physical plumbing somehow equates to legalized discrimination is not a valid arguement. How can a biological male going into a men's room or a biological female using the ladies' room be discriminatory? They aren't being denied the use of the facilities.
Or if that course of action is too objectionable, what is wrong with using a separate facility such as already existing gender neutral or family facilities? The argument that they are being singled out doesn't hold water as any time I use the facilities I am required to use the men's room or the family facilities. Aren't I also being singled out under that premise? There is no difference that I can see.
If the argument is made that it is unfair for the state to “punish” these people for something they can't help just because it makes a segment of society uncomfortable (as it has been put elsewhere) then it's unfair for the State to “punish” me by making me jump through hoops every time I have to purchase decongestant for my allergies just because there's a segment that uses it to manufacture illicit drugs. This is not discrimination, it is merely looking out for the greater good.
We have already witnessed a man claiming to identify as a woman photographing women in the ladies room and another exposing himself to pre-pubescent girls. This indicates that gender neutral restrooms do pose a risk of abuse. If this is not defined now, where will it all end? Will we be reduced to open troughs for our toilet needs so no one will be singled out?
I am not trying to “bash” anyone nor am I passing judgment on anyone's situation. I am merely pointing out that sometimes, no, most of the time we all have to do things that we may not particularly like. The only time that discrimination would come into the picture is if one group of people were granted reprieve from this life fact. Then the rest of us would have cause to complain.
Thomas Burnett, Conway