• Schadrach
    link
    fedilink
    English
    01 month ago

    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.

    • @kingcake
      link
      English
      31 month ago

      You simply eliminate gendered bathrooms all together and save a bunch of money.

      • Schadrach
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 month 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.