system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Single ply industrial toilet paper is useless and more wasteful than two ply normal toilet paper.

I have Crohn's and I've used my fair share of public and office/professional setting bathrooms. They almost invariably have the infamous thin single ply atom thick toilet paper for use. You know the type, shreds if you think of blowing in its direction. I'm male, and hirsute. I have to use wayyyyyy more toilet paper per BM if its that after thought of tree pulp leftovers tp than any other brand of mainstream tp. I have to then wrestle it to fold it and pray it doesn't break apart when it's doing its job. It takes more time to manager, does poorly at its job, and I use more than 2x as much of it as I would two ply making it wasteful and useless. CMV.
gpt
Two factors to consider here: one, our friends with vaginas wipe after peeing as well and in that case single-ply works just fine. Two, if you're like me, you're still going to double up if it is two-ply at least for the first few wipes. 

If you want a solution, what single-ply needs to do is actually be less absorbent and less smooth. By absorbing a lot of water it becomes weaker because it is so absorbent, and by being as smooth as it is it doesn't pick up much of the actual solid material that we are trying to get rid of. By making a version of single-ply that has just slightly more hydrophobic fibers and an essentially fuzzier surface, everyone would benefit. There is some noticeable degree of variation in single-ply in the wild for both of these two categories, and I've certainly noticed that the less absorbent and fuzzier surface single-ply works far better.
Just making it two-ply doesn't actually solve this problem, and while you personally certainly might use far more physical material with single-ply than with two-ply, that's not the general case. For most of us, that's only true in the unlucky case of diarrhea.