@Sadie: Isn't your list of bathrooms also compiled by demanding a list of all licensed restaurants from the city so that your own "investigators" could check for compliance with the regulations?

I would say that this article was more misleading than sensational, hence why I opened my comment up with "Amanda, help me understand..."

Statements like the following for example: "Restaurants with multi-stall bathrooms segregated by gender can work to eliminate discrimination by ensuring that even when rooms are marked for ladies or gentlemen, they’re free of harassment for the spot’s gender-variant pissers."

Sarcastic, well yes. But I left that statement thinking that even Restaurants with multi-stall bathrooms have to be compliant some how.

In reading the article another time, I think the angle was centered more around the Sexist nature of bathroom goers to Unisex bathrooms. However, because the story started off with violations for those with single-stalls, it wasn't clear (at least to me) what the point was.

Match, I'm neither offended or upset by your comments. Keep them coming.

Most folks, when they have to "GO REALLY BADLY" wouldn't care if the door said "Sheep" or "Buffalo" as long as there was a workable toilet in it. Still, for appearance sake and to limit the threat of harassment, I'd just assumed see RESTROOM.

Not to stir the pot a bit (bad pun), but what does your group think about FAMILY changing bathrooms, i.e., like the ones Target has?

In general, I felt the tone of this article was overly sensationalized. It seems like it's trying to "stir something up." We had had no resistance to our campaign from government, business or anyone else. The "Not in My Shower" people are in Maryland, and thus are irrelevant.

I'm not sure anyone ever even complained about this Policy place. Our list is based on people bringing us complaints - if people don't feel like a bathroom is out of compliance, and don't write to us to report it, then it's not really a big deal and it's irrelevant. I'm not sure why the reporter picked that particular place to focus on. The whole end part about people being "creeped out" by unisex bathrooms is also irrelevant, as we're not calling for unisex bathrooms. It seems like the paper was just looking for controversy, and is confusing about what we're actually trying to do.

I guess I am just really tired of reading stories about trans people, written by non-trans people for a largely non-trans audience, that are sensationalized and turned into some kind of huge controversy.

The only controversy here is that trans people are being attacked in bathrooms. We are working *with* local businesses and the OHR to do something about it - the article makes it seem like we're "going after" businesses, or that we're going to go out and sue people for having a blue and pink door on their bathroom. We aren't. We're trying to find workable solutions that keep everyone's needs in mind and give trans people the most possible options for safety. I'm afraid that the generally oppositional tone of the article will scare businesses that may otherwise be welcome to working with us, and thus make our work for safety and access even more difficult.

It should come as no surprise that women take about 50% longer in restrooms than men. If there are only two resrooms with gender specific signs, men will not be waiting in lines as long as women.

If everyone is waiting in the same line for the same single occupancy restrooms, then women and men will have equal waits.

@Sally: This isn't about threatening anyone. We are trying to educate people about the law, and about issues that trans and gender nonconforming people face using public facilities. That's all. It costs nothing to make sure existing single stall bathrooms have a sign reading "restroom" instead of "women." The only time we would ever even consider the possibility of bringing a formal complaint (which in and of themselves rarely end in punitive damages) is if a business, after ample time (and actually they have 60, not 30, days) repeatedly and intentionally refuses to comply.

In fact, we are encouraging members of our community and allies to attend compliant businesses, and once we feel more safe being able to use public bathrooms, it actually means *more* business! That said, I also agree with the following comment: People's safety and right to be free from violence supersedes any businesses' needs. 70% of trans and gender nonconforming people responded in a survey that they had faced serious problems using public restrooms. That matters to me more than business.

To respond to Ruth Jacobs... as a woman and a repeat survivor of assault, I too am very concerned about assault in public bathrooms. But she is clearly missing several key points. One, trans people are already using the bathroom. Like everyone else, we have to pee. And we are not more likely to be sexual predators than cisgender (non-trans) people. There are no documented cases of a trans person assaulting anyone in restrooms. Two, many trans people are indistinguishable from cis people. The flipside to her argument is that trans men - who often look, act, and live their lives as any other men - would be forced to use women's restrooms. Three, it's not like cisgender women are incapable of sexual assault, or are any less likely to assault than trans women are. Believe me. There's no simple or easy way to keep predators out of bathrooms, but discriminating against trans women won't help. Four, it's already illegal to sexually assault someone, and this does nothing to change that. Five, having a "woman" sign as opposed to a gender neutral sign on an existing single stall bathroom does NOT in anyway make it more difficult for sexual predators to enter said restroom. Clearly, signs aren't stopping sexual assault right now.

The fact is, trans and gender nonconforming people are far more at risk of sexual assault than we are a threat. Our campaign is about two things: Making sure everyone is aware that we have a right to safely use existing gender segregated public multi-stall facilities consistent with our gender, and making sure that existing single stall facilities are labeled gender neutral so that we have more options to feel safe. That's it.

Harassment and assualt of transgender people is fairly common for use of the "wrong" restroom. It is so rare for GLB people that all but unheard of.

The exceptionally rare unisex restrooms just confuse the issue and have nothing to do with the Human Rights Act.

The crazy quote from Ruth Jacobs makes her look insane, but it clouds the issue. She isn't even involved with the D.C. law. There was no mention that there was absolutely no opposition to D.C.'s law and it passed the Council unanimously.

Q's odd comment aside, this has nothing to do with homosexuals.

Try reorganizing this article so it makes more sense.

I've seen guys/gals, senors/senoritas, dudes/chicks, etc. What I HAVEN'T seen is women-trandgendered/ males/men-transgendered females. I wonder what a transgendered icon would look like?

Anyways, while I think I understand the portion of the Human Rights Act you cited, I'm still in the dark about how ambiguous or non-ambiguous rest room names have anything to do with bigotry, sexism, and the other things that cultivate harrassment. Should homosexuals cry harrassment or violation of the DC Human Rights act that restrooms are mostly heterosexual?

Women and men make their own comments within the restroom, so it ain't about the name on the door. It's about the character of the person inside the door.

If anything, the risk of folks wandering in a drunken stupor to the "genetically incorrect" rest room might be more more harassing or offensive than anything else.