I have previously noted the men’s bathroom near the public cafeteria, in the Vatican. When I entered, there was a female janitor cleaning in there, and the urinals were in full view, but the stalls were much more private than in the United States. Specifically, the walls and doors were floor-to-ceiling, allowing for just about complete privacy. I mean, if it’s good enough for the Vatican . . . .

I have suggested that this is what will have to be done in the United States due to the claims of the ‘transgender’ for the ‘right’ to use the public restrooms of the sex they claim to be, rather than the sex they actually are. I had thought that was a reasonable compromise, but, nope, at least not for some of the #woke at the University of California at Los Angeles:

Students voice concerns about bathroom policy, security camera monitoring

By Marilyn Chavez-Martinez | Posted: May 28, 2019 11:44 pm | Updated on June 3, 2019 11:46 a.m

Students voiced their questions and concerns about two new campus policy drafts regarding monitoring security cameras on campus and gender inclusive facilities at a town hall Tuesday.

UCLA Policy 890, Gender Inclusive Facilities, outlines new requirements for gender inclusive facilities on campus. Policy 133, Security Camera Systems, seeks to create a centralized database of recorded images and establish guidelines for the removal of cameras that are not compliant with the new policy. Both policies drafts were posted in late May for student review.

Students at the town hall said they think Policy 890 should be further revised to address potentially discriminatory language.

Policy 890 will require all new campus buildings to have at least one multi-stall gender-inclusive bathroom within the building or at least two bathrooms within a 2-minute walk. Buildings that do not have a gender-inclusive bathroom have the option to renovate their restroom to comply with the policy.

Kind of silly, if you ask me. But here’s where it gets really stupid:

Chelsea Dyapa, a third-year philosophy student, said they thought the policy was discriminatory because it could potentially be too costly to implement, limiting the number of gender-inclusive facilities campuswide. Dyapa added they think the policy should go further to increase facility accessibility to LGBTQ and nonbinary people on campus.

“Specifically the floor-to-ceiling dividers for all-gender restrooms,¹ they want them to be much … longer than for men’s and women’s restroom, and we take this as a sign of transphobia because … this basically comes out of a want for privacy and an all-gender restroom, and that want for privacy comes from a fear of trans and nonbinary people,” Dyapa said.

Robert Gamboa, chair of the UCLA committee on LGBTQ affairs and graduate student in the school of public affairs, said while administrators have been supportive of the LGBTQ community in drafting Policy 890, he thinks it still needs further revisions to become more financially feasible. Gamboa said the height requirements for the bathroom stall partitions could inhibit renovations for multistall gender inclusive restrooms by driving costs up.

“Let’s put a policy … in place that’s equitable, but it’s not cost prohibitive, and it’s not transphobic or homophobic in any way,” Gamboa said.

And now privacy is ‘transphobic’ and ‘homophobic’? Do they want to watch other people take a dump? Is peeping-tomism part of ‘LGBTQ+’ now?

There’s just no compromise with these people. They are demanding to be seen as the sex they claim to be, and apparently want their genitals to be seen by everyone . . . and to see everyone else’s as well. Maybe they ought to just mandate all-campus nudity, so that no one has any privacy, no one can keep his genitals covered, ’cause it might upset the poor ‘transgendered’ students.

Assistant Vice Chancellor Kelly Schmader, apparently an adult, never thought that would be an issue:

I was surprised to learn that there’s concern about the floor-to-ceiling partitions, which I thought would be something that would be well received, and unfortunately, are being interpreted as being discriminatory, but that’s the beauty of having a 30-day review period, and having students like ours who are willing to come out and voice their concerns.

There’s no real ‘beauty’ in that; it’s just ugliness as far as I can see. But an adult solution to address the ‘transgendered’ students’ issues is too adult for the obviously-still-children in the student body.
______________________________
¹ – UCLA Policy 890: Gender Inclusive Facilities, Part III, Section 2, § 2.
______________________________
Please visit my Red State story archive for more of my articles.
My personal website, The First Street Journal, includes articles not necessarily in Red State’s paradigm.
You can follow me on Twitter.