1

I lived in Regan, the forgotten part of Segundo. My building was 3 stories, one restroom per floor. Probably single sex buildings in the 1960s. In my building, 1st floor was all women with female restroom, 2nd floor was coed with male restroom. 3rd floor was “rainbow theme floor” and at the time had the only non-gender restroom on campus. They had put weatherstripping on the gaps in the stall doors. The interesting thing was a lot of the 3rd floor residents still went down to 1st or 2nd floor because they weren’t feeling the mixed thing. It was niche for a very small clientele. If there was one thing I learned it was LGBT+ are not a monolith and in fact some subsets really don’t like being affiliated with each other. But if it was busy downstairs, the 2nd floor women would just use the 2nd floor men’s room. For some reason they felt more at home in the men’s room than the gender neutral gig upstairs. It was shocking to find a lot of women leave a bathroom grosser than men. But the main problem for the RA’s was people using the gender neutral shower for consensual hookups.

1

I suppose the “original” dorms were North and South Hall. Not sure if they even had indoor plumbing to debate bathroom genders. The Primero dorms were Beckett-Hughes and Struve-Titus. These were torn down in the 90s and replaced with Primero Grove apartments, although the street name Beckett Hall Circle remains. All of the Tercero dorms have been replaced, as I understand they were concrete buildings and could not be seismically reinforced to standard. Part of the dining hall is still there but has been substantially added on to so it would be hard to recognize the original part. In Cuarto, Castilian was sold off and the 1980s-era buildings on Oxford Circle were torn down and replaced. So the only “old” dorm buildings are Bixby, Gilmore, Ryerson, Malcolm, and Regan. I looked up student housing and Regan looks exactly like it did when I was there 20 years ago although they are building some new dorms to fill in remaining pockets of land in Segundo. It also said all restrooms in Regan and many throughout housing have been turned gender fluid and appears you would have to actually request a floor with a gendered bathroom.

I wonder how many people on campus really are in the “other” category?

overall in society trans and nonbinary is thought to be around 1-2%, among Gen Z maybe up to 5%. Hard to know if the rate is actually going up or just diagnosed/identified more. It has a correlation to autism, which also has higher rates reported than older generations. I have had several trans and nonbinary employees and for whatever reason some have (over)shared with me. But one of their comments was that there is a chasm in that community, with one side, perhaps in fact the larger group, just wanting to use regular men’s/women’s facilities without anyone noticing and the other side wanting to loudly be accommodated as something else. Those two sides don’t really like each other, with the quiet side feeling like the loud folks are making it harder than it needs to be and the loud side feeling like the quiet folks are not sufficiently contributing to the cause. So actual beneficiaries would likely be a subset of this 1-5%.

Interesting thanks for the info. I’m an old retired dude so I only know what I see on the news without real world experience on the subject.

5

I’ve had some people disclose to me they were trans and I would have had no idea otherwise. But “passing” as an ordinary man or woman is based on a couple factors - access to medical/financial/cosmetic resources and desire to pass. I had one employee who was trying to transition on a dollar store budget and just looked like an offensive lineman in drag and another who wished to identify as something else, loudly wearing dresses and a Santa Claus beard. While I recognize legitimate fears of violence in some situations, my estimation is that this is more important to the self-described “allies” feeling comfortable in their ally echo chamber than about people actually using the restroom.

4

I would argue that state universities have a primary fiduciary duty to the state, as in the State of California funds the university because it is good business for all citizens to have a critical mass of smart educated people, even if every person isn’t college bound. The secondary duty is to the student, who is a paying customer. The third duty, which I have gotten into arguments about, is to alumni, who have a vested interest in the upward trajectory of the university and avoidance of scandals. We want our degrees to be appreciating assets, not depreciating ones with an asterisk. As universities have industrialized into quasi-corporations, administrators have become more fiduciary to their own interests and in that quest have fallen into the trap of picking winners and losers based on what resonates well within the inner circles of academic administration rather than what resonates well with the interest and advancement of all Californians.

I find a lot of activists to be exhausting because there is no actual finish line of what they want, at least nothing reasonable and achievable. I believe a 3 branch government is a sturdy stool and I feel wise mentorship could guide that energy into the appropriate legislative channels to make changes for the better that have gone through a compromise process. Instead, what universities basically have been teaching is, it’s ok that your view has limited support, never compromise, shout at the executive or judicial branches loud enough and you may find a champion to ram through your minority opinion, whether it be locker rooms, Netanyahu, or something else.

Six million dollars on a newer facility, for a small subset of a small subset.

Who pays the bill if / when an assault occurs?

Safety should be the #1 concern, not posturing. I believe the MU has a gender neutral restroom, the same could have been added at a much smaller cost while still honoring privacy conventions.

I saw this on Fox News and other right wing media outlets. I don't see how this has anything to do with gender. It's just like our house, or many clothing store changing rooms. Individual rooms for showers/changing rooms/bathrooms. What am I missing?

I think many people will find private cubicles nice. If you’ve ever been to a Buc-ees sitting on the throne in a private throne room is luxurious. If privacy was the motivator, you could have done that within men’s/women’s facilities rather than spending millions to make one big happy locker room/restroom. The stated goals of janitorial efficiency and medic response are nonsense. This is a solution in search of a problem, takes resources away from projects that could benefit a much higher percentage of people in uncertain economic times, distracts from the work the university does that has or could have broad public support, and is red meat for a federal administration intent retaliating against anything perceived as DEI related. I am far from a Fox News consumer, but I still read the room - this is poor timing to double down on this sort of bet.

To be clear, I'm not for or against the new locker rooms. I just saw Davis getting bashed in the news and started reading about the background on the project. The only thing that I could see being beneficial is you probably need nearly half the space if all rooms are coed.

Wow! A university student bathroom renovation becomes national news? Cant believe this is happening.

It's red meat for the conservative news media whenever the words "gender inclusive" appear on a public document.

I would imagine many students of both sexes would feel more comfortable being able to dress in private.

But that's exactly what this is. Private showers, bathrooms and changing rooms. No more walking around naked or in towels to and from the shower to your locker.

oh I agree 100%