When it comes to bathrooms I think most people agree with wanting equal outcomes. That does not mean wanting equal outcomes for all other aspects of life.

Sure, but it's a good way to frame the question. We don't want anyone to be unable to use toilets. Surely there's no clear line where this logic stops. It's fuzzy. Is there anything wrong with wanting everyone to be supremely happy and compassionate and wealthy and thriving? Of course not. The only question is whether efforts in that direction are counterproductive in practice.

> Equal opportunity not equal outcomes is a huge red herring when talking about equality.

No, it's an extremely relevant debate because a certain political faction has been trying to redefine "equality" from its original definition of "equal opportunity" to a completely different one of "equal outcomes".

> Which is the correct approach?

This is a false dichotomy. You can want equal opportunity in most places, and equal outcome in a select few (just like you can want freedom of speech for everything but a select few edge cases).

This is the correct way to do it, actually - enforced equal outcome is inextricably linked with tyranny and oppression, and invariably results in massive loss of human life when it has been ((ostensibly) attempted to be) implemented in the real world.

If you have to pick one, tell me, which is better - for tens of thousands of handicapped people to not be able to access some public bathrooms, or for tens of millions to die in another Cultural Revolution?

If you're going for implausible comparisons, I'll go with the tens of millions, since in the first case, you piss off the handicapped version of Hitler, and he goes on a killing spree that ends with hundreds of millions dead, or more likely deadly disease spreads due to a lack of hand washing. That's at quite a lot of millions now, and people have stopped caring

I rate this debate "-3/10, please do not attempt public discussions again"