Fyi, the reason it's noteworthy is he put them in boys toilets and boys don't menstruate. Which is weird
Imagine boys picking up tampons for their girlfriends or just good friends because they couldn’t.
Yes, that would be very, very unusual
Why would that be unusual at all?
To be fair, only if you live in reality.
It’s clear you don’t have any women in your life, in any reality.
Lol
What a sad defense, "lol". It's painfully obvious how naive you are. Weird
Weird
yep. they are dumber than a bag of hammers and odder than a three dollar bill. weird is just the start.
You think I need to "defend" anything from Lemmy randos?
Lol
Yet you keep trying.
💋
Transmasc students who use boys toilets still menstruate unless on some serious hormone therapy.
Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago
Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago
The reality of this is that it would end up like divisions in sports and other competitive activities and we'd have a women's restroom and a unisex restroom. Because some women want to avoid the opposite sex and society will broadly respect that because they are women.
If schools did switch to all unisex toilets, then we'd just be a complaint and a lawsuit away from official Title IX policy being that girls toilets are mandatory regardless of whether or not there are unisex toilets but boys toilets are not if unisex toilets are available and to do otherwise is sex discrimination because of some arbitrary excuse containing the word "historic" to explain why discrimination is not discrimination so long as it benefits girls.
Instead of stalls put proper walls and doors on the toilets like you have at home. Boom. Unisex toilets with no issues.
In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It's fantastic.
Work has a selection of "unisex" bathrooms and I use them all the time, much preferred over the mens room.
So I'm personally benefitting from this brand of "wokeness", even if I'm not trans.
In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It’s fantastic.
That dramatically reduces capacity though. Which is fine if you don't need that capacity, and/or aren't trying to retrofit existing facilities without spending a fortune.
There's a pizza place nearish me that has two single occupancy unisex restrooms, for example. But before they moved to unisex they had two single occupancy gendered restrooms, so they were just changing signage rather than having to do any kind of construction to make it happen. As opposed to say a local theater that has 6 toilets, 4 urinals and 4 sinks in one restroom and not remotely enough space to have 6 separate rooms with a toilet and sink each in the same space - but they expected to need higher throughput in a smaller footprint (less so now, but they were pretty busy pre-COVID).
This is seriously the way. Once you’ve been to a country that does this (Sweden in my case) and experienced it yourself, the “normal” way (USA in my case) only looks more stupid than it did before.
But I’m sure it would cost more than zero additional dollars to do, so it would get rejected while still on the drawing board. Some human comfort, dignity, and privacy is NOT going to boost our earnings this quarter.
Other than capacity, space, and expense retrofitting issues. Single occupancy toilets take up more room which means being able to handle less people in the same space and space is not an unlimited resource in most building designs. Especially if you are talking about doing it to an existing building.
My comment about Title IX (a law that says that any educational program receiving federal funding may not discriminate with respect to sex) is specifically in reference to them taking exactly that stance with sports - if a girl wants to play a sport that has a boys team but not a girls then a school is required to let her try out for the boys team (and cannot consider her sex and gender as far as whether she makes the team) under Title IX policy, but if a boy wants to play a sport that has a girls team but not a boys team, he's SOL under current Title IX policy. To do otherwise is sex discrimination. Equity.
That is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people. Making all toilets wheelchair accessible would probably help more.
Problem is, women hate it when men use their toilets
Bro have you ever been in a ladies room? Consistently more nasty then the men's, nobody's trying to be in there. You just need a Boogeyman
Even if that's the case, women are super sexist about men in this way. They just hate the idea if sharing toilets with men
No, they don't. You're just spouting that with no data or evidence. Most women I've heard speak about this care more about trans people's safety and comfort than what kind of genitalia is one stall over.
So, your carefully curated echo chamber agrees with you? How about that.
My friends, family, and co-workers do echo lots of common sense, compassionate viewpoints that I agree with. They also tell me when I'm acting like an idiot, or spouting shit that I have no idea about. I sincerely hope that you have some people like that in your life, too.
I inhabit reality. That's kind of the default settings
If you're upset by tampons in men's restrooms, reality must be a struggle for you. I'm sorry to hear that you think there is a default human experience.
No???
Source: I'm a women
To him, that probably invalidates your opinion.
Damn, probably
Wow your post history is weird.
Cis this cis that, election fraud, echo chamber, echo chamber, echo chamber! ( and it goes on )
Pointing out people are crazy? Guilty
Have you gone to a public event. Women’s toilets have long lines and men’s have short to no lines. Makes me think men wouldn’t like women sharing their toilets either.
Making all toilets wheelchair accessible would probably help more.
I'm pretty sure that's already the case. So now that that problem is solved we can move on to figuring out the difficult challenge of making bathrooms unisex. Do we have the time and budget to remove the sign from the door and go about our day?
This guy also doesn't support free lunches for kids in school. Says the majority don't need them, so we shouldn't provide them at all.
I gotta say, you sure have some terrible takes, my friend.
When my kids were in elementary school so many of the students were on free or reduced price lunch they just decided to give every kid a free breakfast and lunch. And even though I could afford the lunches it was great because I didn't have to get them breakfast before school and I didn't have to make sure their lunch money account was topped up.
So even if you don't need them they're a really nice thing to have, IMHO.
Been researching me. Dishonestly representing my opinions. Poor.
I am totally in favour of free school lunches for those in need.
Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?
I'll assume I misread, it happens. However, kids are kids. Let them eat. How much their parents make doesn't matter.
You want poor tax payers to fund free food for rich people?
The kids don't have the money. Moreover, if anyone's taxes go towards a service, they should be able to benefit from that service. Not benefit more, just benefit period.
Couldn't disagree more. I provide for my kids. Kids dot have cars, but I drive mine around in my car because they are my kids.
Free Ubers for all children?
I do not want to see poor people working to provide free services for rich people.
I am astounded that is a controversial take.
And I am speaking as a functionally rich person.
Everything we use is due to taxes. Honestly, as a functionally rich person you should be aware of that. I'm actually of the opinion that anyone in need should be able to utilize services that my tax dollars help fund.
This is how society works.
The fundamental difference is who is taxed more. A poor family's children should have access to food. A rich family's children should have access to food. Your children should have access to food my taxes help pay for, it's super easy, I'm surprised this is a controversial take.
But nah, you right. If your kiddos ever need an ambulance, fuck em. Swipe that credit card, I don't want to be paying to help as a "functionally poor person". /s But hey, you said it first.
Ok, so we disagree on the point of taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people, which I find odd. It's based on need. Using state resources to proved services for which there is no need is wasteful
My children don't need your resources when it comes to their daily needs. Yes, I am in favour of socialized healthcare (and schools, police, etc), why even bring that up?
If you are in favour of free healthcare, let's give everyone free cars?
I disagree with keeping anything basic and essential from children. Hungry is hungry. Moreover, having money certainly doesn't mean any individual has basic humanity and their children may suffer from that. If we assume the needs, or lack thereof, of individuals based on a perception, we will miss those who legitimately have a need. This is incredibly simple. Or do you believe that a child who is hungry and yet has rich parents who can pay for all their needs is at fault?
I am also in favor of free healthcare. All of this can be paid for by taxes levied at individuals who have more than enough to spare. After all, if you're not in favor of the poor paying for the wealthy, let's flip that script. Bernie outlined it years ago, and despite common perception, the U.S. has rather low tax rates compared to many other countries. We could easily supply a solution to the needs of the many through a taxation of the wealthy. Functional ;) or not.
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. I am a supporter of it (used it twice last week).
I think focusing on the lowest common denominator always is not the best.
Tell you what, here is my system. Free lunches for all, but I you have to apply, that's it. I will but apply because it's not needed.
I think presuming the state should step in and overrule parents on the assumption that they will be bad actors is awful and not a what the state is for.
Yes, I support providing free school lunches to both rich and poor students. It removes the stigma of receiving free or reduced cost lunches.
It also gets rid of useless administration and enforcement costs.
How about we socialise the stigma out. Teach kids not to bully
Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?
Why not? Their parents are payin' for it, and it saves a whole mess of useless bureaucrats between hungry kids and food.
Surprisingly, children are children, regardless of being rich and poor, and they all get hungry.
It works like uniforms. If everyone gets the same lunch, kids can't manufacture conflict out of it. Stealing lunch money has always been a thing.
Who uses money in 2024?
This will not end bullying, but it will waste money
Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?
Yes.
McDonald's workers paying for rich kids to eat?
If they're in a tax bracket and financial situation that has them paying that tax, yes.
This is where you and I will disagree. I don't want poor people paying for shit I can get myself without issue. That seems very unfair.
Save that money for a useful social program that helps poorer people
It costs money to operate registers, take payments, etc as well.
Means testing is terrible and why waste time and money rather than cooking the kids some food and having them focus on learning?
Not every aspect of society should be about running some type of business. The whole thing is a distraction from what school ought to be about.
The same goes for medicine, btw. The means testing and insurance gating there is even worse. Take the cash registers and insurance middlemen out of it and suddenly doctors can worry about the patient care instead of payments.
Perhaps. But what if it worked out vastly cheaper to target free lunches. Let's say a billion was freed up for some important social program to help poor people. Would you agree with me if that were the case?
Means testing also makes it easier for the rich to target programs for removal because not everyone qualifies for them.
We all need food, water, and sometimes medical care in order to survive. We all deserve even more, such as vision care, dental, and mental health support, and educational and training programs. Housing should even be a right. We have means tested versions of programs for some of these things, and people of meager means often slip through the cracks because they didn't fill out the right paperwork or weren't considered quite poor enough. It's a shitty system and it starts with people coming from your viewpoint.
If a rich kid actually wants to go to for instance a free city college, who cares? Most people that have the means to go elsewhere would, and ultimately the goal of these institutions is the good societal impact that you want. If rich people are going to free colleges or eating free meals or taking public transit, it means the quality is there, which is great for everyone.
Btw, reading our conversation back, I appreciate your tone and lack of condensation and insults
That was quite a far ranging number of issues. So,
Education, food, housing and healthcare are all different issues.
None of which can ever be a "right" imo. I don't think an exhaustible resource can ever be a right, what happens when it runs out (i could tell you about how my father in law died during COVID. Healthcare definitely ran out then).
housing is definitely not the business of the state in most cases, other than opting to be a moral landlord (as is the case with UK council houses). We should definitely have safety nets, and the housing market should be policed to be fair, but it's not the states job to pay for my house, I've got that covered.
I believe healthcare free at the point of need is the gold standard. But if I had to pay for GP appointments, that would be fine. Those who can't afford it should get it fee. Our prescriptions never cost more than £7.50, which is actually amazing. We could run that number on a curve, if I had to pay 15, that would be fine. Whatever the system is, it has to work and the NHS is really struggling at the moment.
free sub degree education for all is a no brainer for the whole country. If you want to do a degree is some obscure philosophy that won't benefit society, feel free, but pay yourself. Getting a degree that provides skills the country needs, a system of grants is a good idea imo.
And, as you know, food for those in need, sure. I don't want to see people destitute and hungry, but giving that food to millionaires is crazy in principle. Even if it worked out cost effective to do so (which I would be open to examining) I have a fundamental objection to that in principle.
I understand your position as a neoliberal but that's just one way of looking at the world.
The problem with means testing is it erodes the programs and gets the rich to push to have the programs completely dissolved.
Here in the states, nearly everything is means tested and it makes all of our public programs shitty and leaves them constantly on the chopping block for Republicans.
Trust me, I am no neoliberal. While I detest labels that require adherence to dogma, if you were to describe my politics, probably English liberal would do.
Systems being imperfect is no reason to dismiss them. Pursuit of perfection is toxic imo. Good enough should be the standard imo. Surly they only options can't be a) shitty means testing b) needless state benefit to the wealthy. We must be able to come up with something better
I was a kid on free and reduced lunch. there's stigma around being poor enough to need it, and I was bullied for it. my home life was sufficiently dysfunctional that it could be the only food I ate that day, and there were still times I'd rather be hungry than bullied.
so in the interest of removing something kids can be bullied over, sure. tax the rich more, and let a relatively tiny bit of our taxes buy every child at least one meal a day.
-childless taxpayer
Let's better use taxes to provide the service you clearly needed rather than just lunch. I can afford to buy my kids lunch. I don't need poorer people's taxes wasted buying my kids food.
I was also bullied at school. The removal of only one factor would have made no difference. I was bullied because they wanted to bully me.
Oh, so not only do you not want people who need them to have access to menstrual supplies, you also seem to think bigotry against trans people is an acceptable reason why.
I think we will disagree on what constitutes "bigotry against trans people"
I don't doubt that.
Who actually gives a shit? Not the least because transboys do exist, but also because having people reduce the stigma around feminine hygiene products is a net benefit to everyone.
If women know you always have a tampon or pad you will meet so many more women.
Actually, he didn't explicitly do so.
"The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
distric"
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable phrasing.
There is no particularly pro-trans wording or explicitly declaring mens rooms to also have it, the phrasing is supremely neutral.
Fair enough
Back at my school, we use to have fight club in the bathroom. If we had tampons it would have saved a bunch of TP to stop bloody noses. We weren't so forward thinking back in the 90s sadly.
some boys do.
No. Those are not boys
How about people that are born with both sets of sexual organs? Should those people not have access to the products that they need regardless of which bathroom they go in to?
They are intersex. That's a complicated biological situation unique to the individual. I suppose ideally we would change all bathrooms to accommodate 1.7% of the population? If so, I can propose some larger groups who may want representation in public facilities
So you agree that it is a problem, just not as big of a problem as others? If you look on the bright side that's still a win, even if you can think of bigger ones. Are you actively campaigning for the other changes you can think of?
Should I be campaigning for anything?
I'm one of them. your opinion is irrelevant.
You don't get to decide whose opinion are valid, regardless of your identity characteristics
I'm not deleting your comment just so you see how many people disagree with you and keep reading the replies. It's 2024, not the nineteenth century, and transphobia and misoginia only makes you and everyone else worse off.
Am I supposed to take this as a kindness or some kind of threat? I couldn't give a rats fart what any of the loonies on this site think anything I say
I came here thinking it may me a more sane alter to Reddit, holy shit I was wrong.
This is like 2016 tumbler, but you all think then world is like this
Grumpy much? This little corner of the internet is what you make it...
As long as you are an identity obsessed leftist
"Identity obsessed" says the guy that seems to care what health products go in which bathrooms based on identity?
Not their identity, their sex.
It's not weird if you have non-binary kids using the boys restroom.
Here's the Republican logic:
Trans kids shouldn't exist.
Trans kids shouldn't be allowed to transition.
Trans kids shouldn't be allowed puberty blockers.
Trans kids shouldn't have access to basic health products necessary for human dignity.
Republicans want to do everything they can to marginalize trans kids, make life difficult for trans kids and, ultimately, make it even more likely that trans kids will try to kill themselves than they already do, and that rate is damned high enough as it is.
Let me put it to you another way maybe you can understand...
Are you going to tell Buck Angel he's not allowed to have tampons in the men's room? 'Cause I have news for you...
Non binary is a fad that we will not hear about in 15 years
I'm not a republican.
There will be a different name for it, but non-binary people have been around as long as there have been people.
Fyi, the reason it's noteworthy is he put them in boys toilets and boys don't menstruate. Which is weird
Imagine boys picking up tampons for their girlfriends or just good friends because they couldn’t.
Yes, that would be very, very unusual
Why would that be unusual at all?
To be fair, only if you live in reality.
It’s clear you don’t have any women in your life, in any reality.
Lol
What a sad defense, "lol". It's painfully obvious how naive you are. Weird
yep. they are dumber than a bag of hammers and odder than a three dollar bill. weird is just the start.
You think I need to "defend" anything from Lemmy randos?
Lol
Yet you keep trying.
💋
Transmasc students who use boys toilets still menstruate unless on some serious hormone therapy.
Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago
The reality of this is that it would end up like divisions in sports and other competitive activities and we'd have a women's restroom and a unisex restroom. Because some women want to avoid the opposite sex and society will broadly respect that because they are women.
If schools did switch to all unisex toilets, then we'd just be a complaint and a lawsuit away from official Title IX policy being that girls toilets are mandatory regardless of whether or not there are unisex toilets but boys toilets are not if unisex toilets are available and to do otherwise is sex discrimination because of some arbitrary excuse containing the word "historic" to explain why discrimination is not discrimination so long as it benefits girls.
Instead of stalls put proper walls and doors on the toilets like you have at home. Boom. Unisex toilets with no issues.
In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It's fantastic.
Work has a selection of "unisex" bathrooms and I use them all the time, much preferred over the mens room.
So I'm personally benefitting from this brand of "wokeness", even if I'm not trans.
That dramatically reduces capacity though. Which is fine if you don't need that capacity, and/or aren't trying to retrofit existing facilities without spending a fortune.
There's a pizza place nearish me that has two single occupancy unisex restrooms, for example. But before they moved to unisex they had two single occupancy gendered restrooms, so they were just changing signage rather than having to do any kind of construction to make it happen. As opposed to say a local theater that has 6 toilets, 4 urinals and 4 sinks in one restroom and not remotely enough space to have 6 separate rooms with a toilet and sink each in the same space - but they expected to need higher throughput in a smaller footprint (less so now, but they were pretty busy pre-COVID).
This is seriously the way. Once you’ve been to a country that does this (Sweden in my case) and experienced it yourself, the “normal” way (USA in my case) only looks more stupid than it did before.
But I’m sure it would cost more than zero additional dollars to do, so it would get rejected while still on the drawing board. Some human comfort, dignity, and privacy is NOT going to boost our earnings this quarter.
Other than capacity, space, and expense retrofitting issues. Single occupancy toilets take up more room which means being able to handle less people in the same space and space is not an unlimited resource in most building designs. Especially if you are talking about doing it to an existing building.
My comment about Title IX (a law that says that any educational program receiving federal funding may not discriminate with respect to sex) is specifically in reference to them taking exactly that stance with sports - if a girl wants to play a sport that has a boys team but not a girls then a school is required to let her try out for the boys team (and cannot consider her sex and gender as far as whether she makes the team) under Title IX policy, but if a boy wants to play a sport that has a girls team but not a boys team, he's SOL under current Title IX policy. To do otherwise is sex discrimination. Equity.
That is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people. Making all toilets wheelchair accessible would probably help more.
Problem is, women hate it when men use their toilets
Bro have you ever been in a ladies room? Consistently more nasty then the men's, nobody's trying to be in there. You just need a Boogeyman
Even if that's the case, women are super sexist about men in this way. They just hate the idea if sharing toilets with men
No, they don't. You're just spouting that with no data or evidence. Most women I've heard speak about this care more about trans people's safety and comfort than what kind of genitalia is one stall over.
So, your carefully curated echo chamber agrees with you? How about that.
My friends, family, and co-workers do echo lots of common sense, compassionate viewpoints that I agree with. They also tell me when I'm acting like an idiot, or spouting shit that I have no idea about. I sincerely hope that you have some people like that in your life, too.
I inhabit reality. That's kind of the default settings
If you're upset by tampons in men's restrooms, reality must be a struggle for you. I'm sorry to hear that you think there is a default human experience.
No???
Source: I'm a women
To him, that probably invalidates your opinion.
Damn, probably
Wow your post history is weird.
Cis this cis that, election fraud, echo chamber, echo chamber, echo chamber! ( and it goes on )
Pointing out people are crazy? Guilty
Have you gone to a public event. Women’s toilets have long lines and men’s have short to no lines. Makes me think men wouldn’t like women sharing their toilets either.
I'm pretty sure that's already the case. So now that that problem is solved we can move on to figuring out the difficult challenge of making bathrooms unisex. Do we have the time and budget to remove the sign from the door and go about our day?
This guy also doesn't support free lunches for kids in school. Says the majority don't need them, so we shouldn't provide them at all.
I gotta say, you sure have some terrible takes, my friend.
When my kids were in elementary school so many of the students were on free or reduced price lunch they just decided to give every kid a free breakfast and lunch. And even though I could afford the lunches it was great because I didn't have to get them breakfast before school and I didn't have to make sure their lunch money account was topped up.
So even if you don't need them they're a really nice thing to have, IMHO.
Been researching me. Dishonestly representing my opinions. Poor.
I am totally in favour of free school lunches for those in need.
Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?
I'll assume I misread, it happens. However, kids are kids. Let them eat. How much their parents make doesn't matter.
You want poor tax payers to fund free food for rich people?
The kids don't have the money. Moreover, if anyone's taxes go towards a service, they should be able to benefit from that service. Not benefit more, just benefit period.
Couldn't disagree more. I provide for my kids. Kids dot have cars, but I drive mine around in my car because they are my kids.
Free Ubers for all children?
I do not want to see poor people working to provide free services for rich people.
I am astounded that is a controversial take.
And I am speaking as a functionally rich person.
Everything we use is due to taxes. Honestly, as a functionally rich person you should be aware of that. I'm actually of the opinion that anyone in need should be able to utilize services that my tax dollars help fund.
This is how society works.
The fundamental difference is who is taxed more. A poor family's children should have access to food. A rich family's children should have access to food. Your children should have access to food my taxes help pay for, it's super easy, I'm surprised this is a controversial take.
But nah, you right. If your kiddos ever need an ambulance, fuck em. Swipe that credit card, I don't want to be paying to help as a "functionally poor person". /s But hey, you said it first.
Ok, so we disagree on the point of taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people, which I find odd. It's based on need. Using state resources to proved services for which there is no need is wasteful
My children don't need your resources when it comes to their daily needs. Yes, I am in favour of socialized healthcare (and schools, police, etc), why even bring that up?
If you are in favour of free healthcare, let's give everyone free cars?
I disagree with keeping anything basic and essential from children. Hungry is hungry. Moreover, having money certainly doesn't mean any individual has basic humanity and their children may suffer from that. If we assume the needs, or lack thereof, of individuals based on a perception, we will miss those who legitimately have a need. This is incredibly simple. Or do you believe that a child who is hungry and yet has rich parents who can pay for all their needs is at fault?
I am also in favor of free healthcare. All of this can be paid for by taxes levied at individuals who have more than enough to spare. After all, if you're not in favor of the poor paying for the wealthy, let's flip that script. Bernie outlined it years ago, and despite common perception, the U.S. has rather low tax rates compared to many other countries. We could easily supply a solution to the needs of the many through a taxation of the wealthy. Functional ;) or not.
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. I am a supporter of it (used it twice last week).
I think focusing on the lowest common denominator always is not the best.
Tell you what, here is my system. Free lunches for all, but I you have to apply, that's it. I will but apply because it's not needed.
I think presuming the state should step in and overrule parents on the assumption that they will be bad actors is awful and not a what the state is for.
Yes, I support providing free school lunches to both rich and poor students. It removes the stigma of receiving free or reduced cost lunches.
It also gets rid of useless administration and enforcement costs.
How about we socialise the stigma out. Teach kids not to bully
Why not? Their parents are payin' for it, and it saves a whole mess of useless bureaucrats between hungry kids and food.
Surprisingly, children are children, regardless of being rich and poor, and they all get hungry.
It works like uniforms. If everyone gets the same lunch, kids can't manufacture conflict out of it. Stealing lunch money has always been a thing.
Who uses money in 2024?
This will not end bullying, but it will waste money
Yes.
McDonald's workers paying for rich kids to eat?
If they're in a tax bracket and financial situation that has them paying that tax, yes.
This is where you and I will disagree. I don't want poor people paying for shit I can get myself without issue. That seems very unfair.
Save that money for a useful social program that helps poorer people
It costs money to operate registers, take payments, etc as well.
Means testing is terrible and why waste time and money rather than cooking the kids some food and having them focus on learning?
Not every aspect of society should be about running some type of business. The whole thing is a distraction from what school ought to be about.
The same goes for medicine, btw. The means testing and insurance gating there is even worse. Take the cash registers and insurance middlemen out of it and suddenly doctors can worry about the patient care instead of payments.
Perhaps. But what if it worked out vastly cheaper to target free lunches. Let's say a billion was freed up for some important social program to help poor people. Would you agree with me if that were the case?
Means testing also makes it easier for the rich to target programs for removal because not everyone qualifies for them.
We all need food, water, and sometimes medical care in order to survive. We all deserve even more, such as vision care, dental, and mental health support, and educational and training programs. Housing should even be a right. We have means tested versions of programs for some of these things, and people of meager means often slip through the cracks because they didn't fill out the right paperwork or weren't considered quite poor enough. It's a shitty system and it starts with people coming from your viewpoint.
If a rich kid actually wants to go to for instance a free city college, who cares? Most people that have the means to go elsewhere would, and ultimately the goal of these institutions is the good societal impact that you want. If rich people are going to free colleges or eating free meals or taking public transit, it means the quality is there, which is great for everyone.
Btw, reading our conversation back, I appreciate your tone and lack of condensation and insults
That was quite a far ranging number of issues. So,
Education, food, housing and healthcare are all different issues.
None of which can ever be a "right" imo. I don't think an exhaustible resource can ever be a right, what happens when it runs out (i could tell you about how my father in law died during COVID. Healthcare definitely ran out then).
housing is definitely not the business of the state in most cases, other than opting to be a moral landlord (as is the case with UK council houses). We should definitely have safety nets, and the housing market should be policed to be fair, but it's not the states job to pay for my house, I've got that covered.
I believe healthcare free at the point of need is the gold standard. But if I had to pay for GP appointments, that would be fine. Those who can't afford it should get it fee. Our prescriptions never cost more than £7.50, which is actually amazing. We could run that number on a curve, if I had to pay 15, that would be fine. Whatever the system is, it has to work and the NHS is really struggling at the moment.
free sub degree education for all is a no brainer for the whole country. If you want to do a degree is some obscure philosophy that won't benefit society, feel free, but pay yourself. Getting a degree that provides skills the country needs, a system of grants is a good idea imo.
And, as you know, food for those in need, sure. I don't want to see people destitute and hungry, but giving that food to millionaires is crazy in principle. Even if it worked out cost effective to do so (which I would be open to examining) I have a fundamental objection to that in principle.
I understand your position as a neoliberal but that's just one way of looking at the world.
The problem with means testing is it erodes the programs and gets the rich to push to have the programs completely dissolved.
Here in the states, nearly everything is means tested and it makes all of our public programs shitty and leaves them constantly on the chopping block for Republicans.
Trust me, I am no neoliberal. While I detest labels that require adherence to dogma, if you were to describe my politics, probably English liberal would do.
Systems being imperfect is no reason to dismiss them. Pursuit of perfection is toxic imo. Good enough should be the standard imo. Surly they only options can't be a) shitty means testing b) needless state benefit to the wealthy. We must be able to come up with something better
yeah, I do.
I was a kid on free and reduced lunch. there's stigma around being poor enough to need it, and I was bullied for it. my home life was sufficiently dysfunctional that it could be the only food I ate that day, and there were still times I'd rather be hungry than bullied.
so in the interest of removing something kids can be bullied over, sure. tax the rich more, and let a relatively tiny bit of our taxes buy every child at least one meal a day.
-childless taxpayer
Let's better use taxes to provide the service you clearly needed rather than just lunch. I can afford to buy my kids lunch. I don't need poorer people's taxes wasted buying my kids food.
I was also bullied at school. The removal of only one factor would have made no difference. I was bullied because they wanted to bully me.
Oh, so not only do you not want people who need them to have access to menstrual supplies, you also seem to think bigotry against trans people is an acceptable reason why.
I think we will disagree on what constitutes "bigotry against trans people"
I don't doubt that.
Who actually gives a shit? Not the least because transboys do exist, but also because having people reduce the stigma around feminine hygiene products is a net benefit to everyone.
If women know you always have a tampon or pad you will meet so many more women.
Actually, he didn't explicitly do so.
"The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school distric"
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable phrasing.
There is no particularly pro-trans wording or explicitly declaring mens rooms to also have it, the phrasing is supremely neutral.
Fair enough
Back at my school, we use to have fight club in the bathroom. If we had tampons it would have saved a bunch of TP to stop bloody noses. We weren't so forward thinking back in the 90s sadly.
some boys do.
No. Those are not boys
How about people that are born with both sets of sexual organs? Should those people not have access to the products that they need regardless of which bathroom they go in to?
They are intersex. That's a complicated biological situation unique to the individual. I suppose ideally we would change all bathrooms to accommodate 1.7% of the population? If so, I can propose some larger groups who may want representation in public facilities
So you agree that it is a problem, just not as big of a problem as others? If you look on the bright side that's still a win, even if you can think of bigger ones. Are you actively campaigning for the other changes you can think of?
Should I be campaigning for anything?
I'm one of them. your opinion is irrelevant.
You don't get to decide whose opinion are valid, regardless of your identity characteristics
I'm not deleting your comment just so you see how many people disagree with you and keep reading the replies. It's 2024, not the nineteenth century, and transphobia and misoginia only makes you and everyone else worse off.
Am I supposed to take this as a kindness or some kind of threat? I couldn't give a rats fart what any of the loonies on this site think anything I say
I came here thinking it may me a more sane alter to Reddit, holy shit I was wrong.
This is like 2016 tumbler, but you all think then world is like this
Grumpy much? This little corner of the internet is what you make it...
As long as you are an identity obsessed leftist
"Identity obsessed" says the guy that seems to care what health products go in which bathrooms based on identity?
Not their identity, their sex.
It's not weird if you have non-binary kids using the boys restroom.
Here's the Republican logic:
Trans kids shouldn't exist.
Trans kids shouldn't be allowed to transition.
Trans kids shouldn't be allowed puberty blockers.
Trans kids shouldn't have access to basic health products necessary for human dignity.
Republicans want to do everything they can to marginalize trans kids, make life difficult for trans kids and, ultimately, make it even more likely that trans kids will try to kill themselves than they already do, and that rate is damned high enough as it is.
Let me put it to you another way maybe you can understand...
Are you going to tell Buck Angel he's not allowed to have tampons in the men's room? 'Cause I have news for you...
Non binary is a fad that we will not hear about in 15 years
I'm not a republican.
There will be a different name for it, but non-binary people have been around as long as there have been people.
One of the more famous examples:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/pioneering-androgyny-classic-hollywood-star-marlene-dietrich-180963842/
Perhaps,.there are still goths out there