I think people who say this tend to be in the "satire doesn't exist" school of social justice thinking

Oh, why is this so far down the chain? Like clearly this is the reason.

Tumblr is out of control (I know it was Twitter but these have to be the same people)

I actually think of this every time I see one of these stories

Jezebel is notoriously filled with NRA members

Wrong kind of feminists. Jezebel actually kind of likes porn

Ok, I retract that prostitutes cannot be arrested by undercover cops. More to the point though, it's not the only reason to go undercover.

I don't know what could be more anti-scientific. Maybe if someone were to post "Does obesity even exist? We're just asking questions!"-type-articles twice a week or so, complete with links to blogs that flat out deny eating causes weight gain.

It seemed to me that the critics were focusing on sex trafficking but that the law applied to all undercover police. But yeah alright.

But the sex exemption in Hawaii is "so dissimilar from that circumstance on so many levels."

...why? Ok, a prostitute is a person and a drug is not. But like, doing drugs and sleeping with prostitutes are probably both in the category of "things that criminals probably do all the time and if you don't do them too…

I think the idea is that cops who are undercover prosecuting crimes besides prostitution can be sniffed out by their unwillingness to sleep with prostitutes.

I would imagine the cops in question here are not undercover to arrest prostitutes. Why would you need to go undercover for that?

I'm honestly not following your reasoning here. The problem is that they know you can't and don't have sex with prostitutes, who presumably are easily available to provide a test...?

The logic train would chug towards allowing the vice officers to have actual sex with the johns, if it were necessary, and it's hard to see why it would be.

That doesn't sound insane. You still wouldn't have urinals, however, which speed things up a lot since they effectively double the number of toilets you can fit. Granted, they only help men, but if all the men are in the line with you now everyone loses.

Well, most of that space would just be in the hallway, wouldn't it? Look, I'm not saying that having a few gender neutral toilets would be unthinkable, but I think it's pretty much indisputable that multi-stall restrooms, and particularly men's restrooms, are more efficient.

You couldn't fit as many toilets per square foot this way, so lines would be longer. Yeah, privacy is nice, but so is actually being able to pee when you need to.

"The expense isn't an issue when planned"

I find this hard to believe. You'd basically have to provide a mirror, sink, and four walls for every stall in an existing washroom. You also lose all the space-saving advantages of urinals, which are pretty much why the lines to men's washrooms are always so much shorter than…

I'm not sure exactly what's being advocated for here, but replacing public washrooms with individual equivalents is clearly not going to be viable in most places. Look at how long the line to the women's room compared to that to the men's is in any nightclub. That's basically because urinals take up less space than…

Instead of teachers, I think. They're accusing the education system of being a government make-work scheme.