All Restrooms Unisexual?


I am not sure where else to post this, if it needs to be moved I am sure a moderator will. I am always in the family life forum so I post here.

I recieved this in my a newsletter today from the couple that did our marriage prep class.

"What is going on in the restroom?

Who would have believed it would be legal for men to enter women’s locker rooms?’

With May 29th’s signature on SB200, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, has eliminated gender-specific restrooms and locker rooms statewide, giving women and girls reason to fear that their privacy might be invaded.

The state’s new “transgender nondiscrimination” bill makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the “perception” of gender identity. Those who would attempt to protect others from this intrusion are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and up to one year behind bars."

:eek: :eek: :eek:
I never thought I would say I was GLAD I moved out of Colorado!!!


The Colorado SB 200 can be read here.

I have searched for the words restroom, locker, and bathroom. Those do not appear in the bill.


Huge stretch from the “Public accommodation” language to thinking there are not more men’s rooms in the state.


Yeah the bill is getting a lot of heat here in Colorado, from Focus on the Family. From what I’ve seen its not actually going to make all bathroom, etc. unisexual. The idea if I understand it right is those people who identify themselves and transgender can use the bathroom of the gender they identify with rather than the bathroom of their physical gender.

Can’t say that I’m thrilled with the bill, however as a whole Colorado is a rather conservative state. I really don’t see this changing much of the day to day activities of the people here.



How disgusting. This is a victory for twisted secularist values, to be certain. And it is also something which will no doubt be used by perverts who would harass women in public restrooms or locker rooms.


Try “facilities.” Page 8, line 1.

Also troubling is that it forbids discrimination on “The provision of funeral services;” (What if a group considers it their equivalent of excommunication and does not want to bury such person there? is that not a violation of their freedom of belief?

“Enrollment or classification of students at private
occupational schools;” In other words, forbidden to bar or discipline active homosexuals from a school the state defines as "occupational.’ And if the school so defined is religious?

“24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden.” This section is vague enough to forbid a person who owns a property to permit material distributed that says homosexuality is wrong.

I could go on, but the law is so vaguely worded, it can mean what someone wants it to. Certainly charities owned by churches can be targeted under this law.

I think the groups you mention are in fact understanding the implications of such a vaguely worded law.


I half agree with this and half disagree. I have an intestinal disorder and if the men’s bathroom is occupied and I may just have to go to the women’s bathroom, I have done that before in order to keep from going in the middle of a store. I knock on the door and yell sorry it’s an emergency and I run to the nearest stall. But that’s a special case. Bathrooms are too secluded and there may be children in there who would be easy rape victims. You can’t put anyone in harms way and by opening bathrooms to everyone then I feel that it puts men, women, and children at risk. God bless


I just went to our hospital last night for an ecocardiagram and yes all the restrooms, that I could see were unisex. I was surprised. I think just the unisex signs were added nothing different about the rooms. Our library has one man and a woman and a unisex for ither. Some have baby tables in the mens now so the men can take care of the baby.


There are a large number of unisex washrooms in Korea, and they’re just as disturbing as you’d expect them to be (at least, disturbing to my delicate Canadian sensibilities :smiley: ).

There are urinals and stalls. Men go to urinals, and stalls are used by whoever needs them. Most of the time, whoever’s using the urinal can be seen from the doorway - not cool! :eek: When I’m in a unisex bathroom, I try to avoid entering if I see a man at the urinal. If I’m in the stall and I hear someone enter and use the urinal, I usually wait until he’s finished before leaving my stall. I don’t know if I’d be able to see anything … untoward… but I’d rather not risk it.

On the other hand, if the washrooms are entirely stall-based, or if the urinals are behind a curtain or something, I have no objection to unisex washrooms.


This makes more sense than what the first post was implying. Not that I agree with it, but I do see that some people (men dressed as women, mainly) feel the need for this (if they try going into the men’s room, I am sure they are at risk for being targeted for harassment and it would be illegal to enter the women’s room).

I for one, wouldn’t mind it, as another poster said, sometimes you need to use the restroom and it is an emergency and, I think many women will agree, it seems the women’s room (especially in concerts, plays, or things of that nature) always have a line, when the men’s room are empty. I will admit, I have used the men’s room in some instances (after my husband has gone in first to make sure it is empty), so it would be nice to know that I am not breaking the law in such circumstances.

I believe that if men want to target women/children, they do not need this law to help them, they would do it anyway.


This thread brought up to the surface a dream I had last night (and had subsequently forgotten), and this post is almost word-for-word what the dream was, except for the Korean reference.

Other than the possibilities for predation, I don’t have a problem, personally, with unisex bathrooms. Whoever wants to go into the privacy of a stall can do so (and this is what I did in the dream). And whoever sees me doing my business, isn’t seeing much.



Thank you for doing that research :wink: I was busy when I posted this so didn’t get to look that far into the law.

I know when I have traveled in Europe, they have, men, women and then “family” bathrooms. I have seen more of these popping up in tourist areas across the US within the past few years. Personally I think something like that would be more acceptable. That or I think it was at the train station in Chicago they have stalls that are enclosed from the floor to the ceiling, I think I could accept that a little bit better.


I got a shock Sunday morning seeing a woman come out of what I thought was the men’s room. Our church (built in the early 1900s) had a one-stall men’s room (no urinal) and a one-stall ladies’ room. They’ve just been remodeled, and when I looked closer, I saw that the remodeling including a bi-gender sign on each. How funny that this should occur, right when we’re discussing this!



I’m a little confused. Is this referring to multi-stall or single-stall bathrooms? If I walk into a restroom and can choose from 5 different toilets then I definitely want the restrooms to be gender specific. But if I walk into a room that has only one toilet and one door (and only one person in the room at a time) then I don’t mind that being a uni-sex bathroom.


My understanding is it is ALL facilities, including in places such as athletic clubs. I also wouldn’t mind if it was single stall bathrooms.


I am sure you did have a laugh about that.

I don’t think in any way that a unisexual single stall bathroom would offend me, even if it had a urinal. As long as it had a lock on the door.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit