At my workplace we've had gender-neutral toilets for as long as I've been there (so since 2014) and I've never heard any complaints, nor do I have any myself.

Whereupon the conversation promptly shifted to porn and bathrooms.

I respect that and yeah it,s a bless AND a curse to always want to deliver the best you can do.

I hope you can make enough free time to relax once in a while.

Ontopic: Since some years i have been thinking i have been never really fully straight and that i could have an interest in lets say very girly males,and to some extend female characteristics in attitude can attract me more than gender/sex in itself if that makes sense .

Speaking for myself as the resident femyl, I'm not at all worried about being sexually attacked by trans people. There aren't any trans-identified people in my whole community, in fact. That's not my issue with the proposition that all public restrooms should be made unisex. I feel perfectly safe in that regard and furthermore would so long as whoever else may be in the same public restroom as me can pass for a women. If you look female to me, I'll assume you're a woman and think nothing of it. I think that's true for just about all women, in fact, not just me.

HOWEVER, I also think I speak for many if not most women when I say that if you waltz into the women's restroom sporting oh say a Duck Dynasty-length beard and start talking on your phone in a deep, testosterone-heavy voice, I'm going to instantly become way less comfortable. I mean I don't think anyone is really comfy with using the restroom in a public setting in the first place, but the ordinary, inescapable level of discomfort just gets magnified a great deal if there's somebody who is clearly male there with me while my pants are down. I mean I'm probably safe, but that's something that drastically increases my level of concern and stress and, as someone who's typical heart rate lying down doing nothing is what yours probably is on a treadmill already, I don't think I should have to go through that. That shouldn't be allowed. And I should have some kind of official recourse available to me if that does happen; like I should be able to protest your presence in the women's room to the store management without being charged with discrimination for doing so, jeez! I'm not trying to oppress anybody, it's just...have some common sense, you know?

Also, there are many places in the world that do exactly what you, Runa, have proposed and make all the public accommodations unisex. The result tends to be simply that the line to what normally would be the women's room (the one without the urinals) gets longer because men now have an additional option. Women, conversely, don't typically want to use the men's room for some odd reason that might just possibly have to do with the obvious, intimidating physical advantages that men tend to have, especially when grouped together in large numbers. Women don't want to use the men's room. Demand for unisex bathrooms overwhelmingly comes from one direction. I point this out to highlight the intellectual dishonesty of those who claim that making all public facilities unisex is a common demand of women that tends to reduce wait times. The exact opposite is the case.

Many places include single-stall, unisex restrooms as a third option these days specifically to accommodate trans-identified people in a way that's not disruptive or concerning to the rest of the population, and I'm supportive of that. I feel that that should be respected; that one should treat trans people and their spaces the same way you might prefer that others treat you and yours, just as a matter of simple courtesy. You, JWeinCom, probably don't mean any harm, and likely aren't doing any, but I'm just saying.

Those are my thoughts on these matters.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you'd limit female bathrooms to those who can pass as a woman?  That begs the question, by whose determination?  

Thing is ,if it is a public bathroom it should be by public determination.

Look, I'm not exactly asking for pre-entry strip-searching of  anyone for a genital check (ew!), jeez! I'm just saying that if somebody who is very obviously male is in the women's room with me, I should be able to protest that without penalty because it would make me extremely uncomfortable. That is all. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.

First off, public means for the use of the public and generally funded by the public.  Not that the public controls it directly.  I don't get to make any decisions regarding how public transportation is operated, beyond the ability to elect officials who may share my views.

Secondly, how does that standard work in practicality?  Obviously we're not going to have like a vote for every woman who wants to use a ladies room.  And, suppose you have a cis-woman who people perceive as masculine?  Should she not be able to use the ladies room?  And what if she's also deemed too feminine for the men's bathroom?

Third, we generally don't want to and don't allow "the masses" to be dictating rights. It would obviously be illegal (in the US at least) to not allow black people to use a public restroom even if the public wanted that.  Discriminating arbitrarily on the basis of sex is similarly illegal.  The issue of whether sex should include gender identity is one that is I believe before the supreme court at the moment.

Personally I think male to female trans should be allowed to use women's restrooms while cis gendered men should not.  That opinion is subject to change based on data that either shows that men do not tend to harass or assault women in women's bathrooms or that male to female trans do.  The problem I have is in thinking of a clear, objective, and easily enforceable policy that would allow male to female trans while also disallowing cis-men.  

The problem is that "very obviously" is loose standard.  It's pretty conceivable that there are some people who are cis-females that some people may consider "very obviously" male.  And of course, there are many trans women who people would argue are "very obviously male".  I think that standard would lead to discriminatory practices.

The thing I always find ironic about the bathroom debate is that the bathroom laws actually don't change anything. They are supposedly brought in to stop pervvy men going into women's toilets and watching them. Thing is, what said man is doing was illegal before the law as well. And if they are intent on peeping, the new law isn't going to persuade them not to, they'll do it anyway.

Then there are FTM transpeople. They are legally forced to use to female toilets, although many of them look so stereotypically masculine you'd never guess. I imagine it must be so awkward for them, legally you have to use the ladies toilets but your physical appearance means everyone sees you as a man and your likely to get repeatedly challenged and told to use the mens. That's actually where youd rather go but it's illegal. I bet when they say their trans its then assumed they are MTF rather than FTM which then exacerbates the problem.

If a man is going into a bathroom and was being a pervert, it would be very difficult to prove that.  It would be impossible to prove that a man looking where he wasn't supposed to was doing so intentionally.  Even if he said or did something, it would become a he said she said situation.  In contrast, demonstrating that a man went into a woman's bathroom would generally be much easier.

By making it illegal (I don't know if it actually is, but lets assume) we accomplish two things.  First, we make deter men from entering the bathroom in the first place, lessening the likelihood that a woman is harassed to begin with.  Second, we make it so that in cases where there is a harassment, women have some sort of recourse.  Even if they can't prove the actual harassment, they can prove the... I guess we'll call it trespassing.

Whether that actually works or not, that's the theory behind it.