▲ 2092 ▼ Bathroom tampons. (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 230 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (1 child) I like how right-wingers whole existence is being angry about net positive things in society. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think someone has to pay for the tampons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) If they're not getting used, nobody's having to pay very much for them. It's a stupid thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 3 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago No, they already have the pipe and try to remove them You do see the difference permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kingcake@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) You simply eliminate gendered bathrooms all together and save a bunch of money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think someone has to pay for the tampons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) If they're not getting used, nobody's having to pay very much for them. It's a stupid thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 3 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago No, they already have the pipe and try to remove them You do see the difference permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kingcake@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) You simply eliminate gendered bathrooms all together and save a bunch of money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think someone has to pay for the tampons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) If they're not getting used, nobody's having to pay very much for them. It's a stupid thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 3 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago No, they already have the pipe and try to remove them You do see the difference permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kingcake@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) You simply eliminate gendered bathrooms all together and save a bunch of money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think someone has to pay for the tampons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) If they're not getting used, nobody's having to pay very much for them. It's a stupid thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 3 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago No, they already have the pipe and try to remove them You do see the difference permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) If they're not getting used, nobody's having to pay very much for them. It's a stupid thing to worry about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 3 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DrFuggles@feddit.org 3 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago No, they already have the pipe and try to remove them You do see the difference permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago No, they already have the pipe and try to remove them You do see the difference permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 1 point 2 years ago No, they already have the pipe and try to remove them You do see the difference permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kingcake@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) You simply eliminate gendered bathrooms all together and save a bunch of money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kingcake@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) You simply eliminate gendered bathrooms all together and save a bunch of money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago* 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. permalink fedilink source parent
