It is common sense. Common sense is not always right however, as it is only the construct of the society in which you belong too. One persons common sense may differ entirely from another, in the case of gender roles and who can use what, the common sense between the two parties are extremely skewed away from one another. To those who are for the movement believe it is common sense for a child to feel safe in their expression of who they are, while others, who do not share the same sentiments, common sense would dictate their aversion. In "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society" by Emma Green, Green's common sense differs from others as she believe it is fundamental to create an environment where people can safely express their individuality.

“1600-Genderbread-Person.jpg (JPEG Image, 1600 × 1035 Pixels) - Scaled (22%).” N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2016

As the graph above illustrates, gender identity comes from the mind, the expression of which is the embodiment of the human psyche. The mind is a very complex and delicate piece of machinery, so much so that the entirety of its functions, what it can do, still remains a mystery. Gender identity, being connected to something so profound and delicate, is a topic of utmost sensitivity. The constant denial of what the mind believes itself to be causes anxiety, depression, and an overall feeling of difference. The pile up of these emotions have, as Jen mentioned, led to very high rates of suicides. They view health problems in terms of the "victim" however, they do not consider the strain it causes on the transgender student.

The same sex marriage law catered to a certain minority so that they can express their right to marry whomever they wish. The law was made to allow the basic right to marriage, yet proposed bills that cater to people who otherwise find the act repulsive, due to religious belief, are on the chopping board. Religious right is inalienable, so is the right to marry, what then, is the problem if legislation are in place to allow people to practice their belief and not attend ceremonies where the act offends their religion?

The age old argument. If men (identify as female) are allowed to use the bathroom, and the situation arises, they can overpower their women counterparts and sexually assault them. What these supporters fail to mention is that, even without legal allowance of men going to into women bathrooms, people who wish to do such acts do so without regards. These acts, despicable to the highest of levels, still happen on a daily basis. Men who wish to assault women in bathrooms exists, and will continue to do so with or without the law on their side.

Are they exposed, though? Occupants are not openly exposed when they use the restrooms. There are dividers, stalls, that separate and hide body parts. Since that is the case, what is the problem with having an identified female going to the room in which they identity with? Major concerns over privacy are no doubt just, but there is a solid metal wall that separates you from the other.

Replace "transgender" with African-Americans and the argument resembles those of past gross negligence towards the injustice faced by black citizens on issues of violence and discrimination. We now look towards that point in history with contempt and disgust, yet in today's society, we are doing just that which we criticize our predecessors for. Not unlike the past, we are not acting fast enough on these issues; we let them foster on and on. The time has come for these problems to be addressed, with clear and comprehensive legislation passed for accommodations.

"His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society" by Emma Green. Summary:

The article starts off with the acknowledgment of the changing in gender roles. Because of such changes, Green appeals that designers should take note of these differences and help promote acceptance and change through their designs. Green then goes on mentioning the condition of design within the working world of today, to which she attributes to the modernism movement; a movement deeply connected to the male perspective, as they are the ones that dominate the working force. Green makes the claim that a wave of feminism will hit the work force, in response, Tick reaches out to designers on that they should focus on incorporating "gender sensitivity" into the workplace. Giving examples of the type of changes, such as adding more windows, more "softness in texture," in essence, a re-haul of the old solid workplace catered to the male perspective, to that one that focuses on softness and hospitality.

The article then shifts gear to the actual instances where gender sensitivity has made its way into the way things are designed. Tick adds that the fastest field to incorporate this sensitivity is within fashion, due to its rapid movement. Tick gives examples of designs, such as a woman's military coat, and masculine designs for male makeup, which have been made in attempts to accommodate the changing gender roles. Ending the article, Tick brings up transgenders face on a daily basis, the use of bathrooms. Tick argues that the very first step should be providing an environment that allows an individual to express his or her identity, the issue of bathroom usage then, is the stepping stone towards creating such an environment.

Gender is not going to disappear, in fact, not only is it not going anywhere, but it is also changing at a rapid pace. The rapidity to which gender roles are changing is the focus of the article by Emma Green, "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society," in which, she implores designers to incorporate gender sensitivity into their works, allowing for an accommodation of the differing roles.

This can be attributed to the phenomena Green mentions in her article "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society". The world, as of now, is shaped by "modernism", a movement that centers itself around the male perspective. A new wave however, is coming, to which feminism is the cause. The shift creates anxiety within the population as the foundation on which it was built upon begins to crack, causing Americans to experience this "profound gender anxiety".

The reasoning behind bathrooms and its centrality to the argument is because they are "...spaces that are sensitive to such personal issue." (Green) Everyone can accept you for who you are, use the proper pronoun when addressing you, support you and your identity, however, that all comes to nothing when you are forced to enter a room that spells out, in big letters, the gender that you are not. That is profoundly personal, and it affects the psyche, so much so that it destroys the identity that you have built for yourself, the bathroom signs will always be there to tell you that you are not who you say you are. That is why bathrooms came next, and that is why bathroom neutrality, advocated in "His & Hers: Designing for a Post-Gender Society" is so important.

As the post above mentions, religion should not have any ties to government. The issue at hand is a state problem, not one of religion. Therefore, religion should in no way be under consideration when deciding the course of action on bathroom access.

Scientifically, during the process of fetal development, everyone starts off as females and it is only later on when its sex changes according to genetic makeup.