{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03648648648648649, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033783783783783786, 'mean_word_length': 5.145228215767635, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Changing Room? A Quick Tour of Men's and Women's Rooms in U.S. Law over the Last Decade, from the U.S. Constitution to Local Ordinances

Constitutional Equal Protection In litigation concerning the admission of women to the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), the school made much of the educational benefits afforded by “total lack of privacy,” with male cadets under constant observation even while in “gang bathrooms.”1 Admitting women, the school successfully convinced a federal district court judge, would have one of two unacceptable consequences: either the women, too, would “lack . . . privacy,” thereby “destroy[ing] any sense of decency that still pervades the relationship between the sexes”2 or “adaptations would have to be made, in order to provide for individual privacy,” thereby destroying equality, transparency, and the VMI honor code, which depended, according to Judge Jackson Kiser, on “the principle that everyone is constantly subject to scrutiny by everyone else.”3 Although she noted that the educational system in Plato’s Republic featured both sexes exercising together in the nude,4 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for a Supreme Court majority that “admitting women to VMI would undoubtedly require alterations necessary to afford members of each sex privacy from the other sex.”5 VMI officials went Ginsburg one better: they gave some privacy, even from their own sex, to the women the Supreme Court required VMI to admit. In fact, even before the