I don’t know that it’s net positive, probably closer to net neutral at best. A very small minority benefits from tampons in the boys room (trans and girls that ask boys to fetch one for them) and the cost is probably low, but definitely not free.
hey, I agree that there should be tampons in bathrooms. It just seemed like you were misunderstanding each other, so I tried to help out. I also think that we should be able to cover the, idk, 500k per year to outfit schools with tampons.
How? Like that’s saying a town should not get water because they don’t have that many residents. Every paid for tampon is for the same reason no matter where it is placed. This is just a convoluted rationalisation for discrimination
Like that’s saying a town should not get water because they don’t have that many residents.
More like a water company not being willing to run pipes out to service that one house up the hollow past where the state stops bothering to pave the road. And you know what? Water utilities don’t run those pipes, because it would cost a bunch of money for very little public benefit. You don’t have to get too rural before you start seeing people with well or spring water because it stops being worth it to run city water.
Extra tampons, dispensers, installation and maintenance on those. Like I said, a low but non-zero cost for a small benefit (tampons in the boys bathroom) utilized by a tiny minority (trans girls and girls that send boys to fetch them tampons in an emergency). It might actually be a net positive (compared to what you could do by taking the funding used to include boys bathrooms in the tampon program and spending it on something else), but if it is it’s not going to be much of one just because of how small the total benefit is.
You could, doing so would likely increase utilization of the tampon policy meaning it would have a larger benefit for the same cost.
I suspect if you tried to in schools you’d end up with a weird Title IX ruling that claimed that not having a girls room (regardless of availability of a unisex restroom) is sex discrimination in a way that not having a boys room isn’t, because equity. They have a bad habit of taking that kind of approach, see school sports.
I like how right-wingers whole existence is being angry about net positive things in society.
I don’t know that it’s net positive, probably closer to net neutral at best. A very small minority benefits from tampons in the boys room (trans and girls that ask boys to fetch one for them) and the cost is probably low, but definitely not free.
What is the cost?? That boys learn about things they should not know about? And don’t tell me the extra tampons, that’s not how that works
I think someone has to pay for the tampons.
If they’re not getting used, nobody’s having to pay very much for them. It’s a stupid thing to worry about.
hey, I agree that there should be tampons in bathrooms. It just seemed like you were misunderstanding each other, so I tried to help out. I also think that we should be able to cover the, idk, 500k per year to outfit schools with tampons.
How? Like that’s saying a town should not get water because they don’t have that many residents. Every paid for tampon is for the same reason no matter where it is placed. This is just a convoluted rationalisation for discrimination
More like a water company not being willing to run pipes out to service that one house up the hollow past where the state stops bothering to pave the road. And you know what? Water utilities don’t run those pipes, because it would cost a bunch of money for very little public benefit. You don’t have to get too rural before you start seeing people with well or spring water because it stops being worth it to run city water.
No, they already have the pipe and try to remove them
You do see the difference
Extra tampons, dispensers, installation and maintenance on those. Like I said, a low but non-zero cost for a small benefit (tampons in the boys bathroom) utilized by a tiny minority (trans girls and girls that send boys to fetch them tampons in an emergency). It might actually be a net positive (compared to what you could do by taking the funding used to include boys bathrooms in the tampon program and spending it on something else), but if it is it’s not going to be much of one just because of how small the total benefit is.
You simply eliminate gendered bathrooms all together and save a bunch of money.
You could, doing so would likely increase utilization of the tampon policy meaning it would have a larger benefit for the same cost.
I suspect if you tried to in schools you’d end up with a weird Title IX ruling that claimed that not having a girls room (regardless of availability of a unisex restroom) is sex discrimination in a way that not having a boys room isn’t, because equity. They have a bad habit of taking that kind of approach, see school sports.