My Google Internship

It's absolutely untrue that the lunches are about saving time. Please note the work/life balance commentary in the article. You're jumping to high-minded ideological explanations that confirm your bias based on facts you've unilaterally created.

Engaging me in what you believe to be "rational" discussion isn't going to change my posts. Because despite your attempt to ignore addressing the issues I highlight by grouping them together and characterize me as a 'hater', I'm a pretty straight shooter.

If you want to change my commentary, you have to change your employer. Why not ask Larry Page at those company AMAs why Google keeps their contracts with manufacturers (now seen as illegal in most countries) so secret? Why not tell Larry Page you don't want to work at a company that uses political corruption to avoid being subject to the same laws as everyone else? Ask Larry Page to stop getting Google involved in overthrowing world leaders, and otherwise going well outside the reasonable bounds of a tech company. Tell Larry Page you want to work at a company that puts people, not algorithms, in charge of customer service. I mean, you literally now work at a company that's operating in complete defiance of federal law in Russia, as Google is refusing to comply with court orders there. As a long time employee, Ray, you are complicit in all of Google's incredibly terrible behavior, even if you aren't directly responsible for it.

If Google starts behaving itself, those of us following the news will listen and respond accordingly. Just as many have softened their take on Microsoft, as they've started making more consumer-friendly decisions. (Though there's some areas they still have a long way to go as well.)

The point I was trying to make is that you do not need to be at the absolute top-end of software engineers to apply for and work at Google.

If you are, then great! But if you are not the very best-of-the-best that is fine as there are still options for you to work at Google and write code for a living, just you probably wont be working on the sexiest world-changing products.

Three big causes:

First, home bathrooms are reliably single-user. Some people are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of sharing a bathroom with people of another gender (though exactly which people they would not want to share with is a complicated question). Interestingly, this seems to be a bigger deal in the US, where our stalls are shoddy and easy to see into.

Second, cleanliness. Mostly, home bathrooms stay clean on a system of "if you make a mess you'll get yelled at". That's not viable in public settings, so gendering helps ensure that there are clean toilet seats for those who need to sit on them. Again, not totally effective, but relevant.

Third, most public and business bathrooms have a bunch of gendered additions which aren't present in homes. Urinals, hygiene/contraceptive vending, and (controversially) changing tables are the big ones.

For a sanity check on that list, think about the public bathrooms that aren't gendered. Single-person bathrooms are often marked male/female/family/disabled, on the grounds that they have a toilet, changing tables, and cause no particular gender issues. Similarly, porta-potties are usually unisex, whether or not they include a urinal. Again, they're single-user and generally filthy no matter who uses them.

So there's a bunch of reasons. But the third - the most objective - doesn't actually require gendered signage. A "facilities" list would be more useful and effective for those issues. The second is a bit ambiguous - gender doesn't seem to be the strongest predictor of bathroom hygiene, and there are options here. The first is the strictly gendered one, but it's actually quite complex! For all the concern of "gender identity doesn't make a person look like they fit here", "gender assigned at birth" is no better at ensuring "only people who look like they belong here". The ways to achieve that would be subjective and probably inconsistent between complainants.

Reasons for signage, then, but not necessarily for gendered signage.

I want to start this by saying I think it is wrong for a person to be attacked in any manner for their citizenship in a protected class. At the same time, I think all protected classes should be fair game for critical discussion on the pros and cons of belonging to that specific class.

With my opening comment in mind, what if I reject your premise and believe that ones gender should match their sex? Is it not a political issue when a portion of the population believe transgenderism is alright and another portion believe differently?

I feel like the standard for what counts as "diversity and inclusion" is skewed. There is no problem with an atheist opening being critical of religion. Yet I cannot openly critique the merits of anything in the LGBTQQIP2SAA community.

Is the end goal that everyone has the "right" answer to specific questions and no one has hurt feelings or is the end goal that an open honest dialog between radically different viewpoints can happen where all parties are respected regardless of the topic being discussed or who is involved in the discussion? Someone please chime in if they disagree but I see a lot of former happening and only lip service being paid to the later.