Thread: Should Bathroom Gender Rules Be Enforced at All? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025379
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
On one side, you have transgender persons, one of the most persecuted groups in society, wanting to go to the bathroom where they feel they belong without fear of harassment or legal action, and on the other side you have conservative Muslims, Haredic Jews, and other social conservatives who may refuse to use public restrooms if they feel that someone born to the opposite biological sex as they could go inside. It is clear to me that the transgender community is the one facing the greater discrimination here since many of them frequently feel their lives are at risk (or are at risk of committing suicide due to the oppression they face). However, I am unsure how the law and the policies of the owners of buildings with public restrooms should address this in a way that is fair to everyone. Should gender segregation in public bathrooms exist at all? If it does exist, should it be enforced? If transgender people are allowed to use the bathroom of their choice (as I believe they should be able to), should a person's verbally identifying as transgender be enough to allow him or her to use whatever bathroom she or he chooses? If gender segregation in restrooms should be enforced, what guidelines should be followed in deciding when to enforce it?
Posted by loggats (# 17643) on
:
What about genderfuck bathrooms? A lavatory for people who identify as purely androgynous? Unisex commodes that can be used by both sexes? Entirely private spaces where gender segregation isn't an issue, because there's no communal area at all?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Most people probably aren't going to be paying much attention if a person dressed and looking female goes into the ladies' room. The problem is going to arise when a person who to all appearances is male demands a right to enter the women's restroom because she identifies as female.
Most people would probably be creeped out by that. I don't know if I'd blame them.
So it seems to me that the best solution might be a third, non-gendered restroom.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Trying to construct an ordering of oppression never works out. Is a rich Lesbian of Color more oppressed than a parapalegic pagan?
What about people whose religious sensibilities forbid them sharing public bathrooms with people of other religions?
What do the religious people you mentioned do when they are out in the woods where Pope and Bear and Transgender people share the space?
I had a friend who talked about being impressed about some bathrooms he encountered in Germany. There was a men's door and a women's door, but they lead into the same shared bathroom with stalls. Only the proprieties were being observed.
So perhaps the solution for places with
religious sensibilities is to provide single person pay toilets that are self cleaning. They are made for city street use.
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
A local pub used to have 3 single-room loos, marked "male", "female", and "not sure". Sadly, under new management, these were converted into 2 conventional two-cubicle units.
Personally, I think entirely non-gendered bathrooms* should not be a problem, since anything that involves a level of undress either is or can be done in a cubicle - the public urinals coomon in gents' bathrooms are not really necessary; toilets can be used fot the same purpose, or urinals can be put in cublicles.
Even sinks can be put into a cublicle with a toilet (and already somtimes are); so issues of privacy and concerns over gender mixing could be solved with interior design and willingness.
(Furthermore, unisex batchrooms would also help alleviate the much more trivial, but widespread problem of long queues at the ladies' while hardly anyone uses the gents'...)
*I use this in prefernce to "toilet" to avoid confusion with the indiviual piece of hardware
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I don't see the need for sex segregated restrooms at all. Especially in small places that have single user bathrooms... why not just have two for either sex instead of one for each alone?
I can see it might be more problimatical with larger rooms with more accomidations, but as doubtingthomas said, if everything is inside a stall there shouldn't be any problem.
Posted by loggats (# 17643) on
:
I've only used a unisex bathroom once (that I can remember) and it felt odd watching women leaving the stalls, walking over to wash their hands and doing all sorts of quite private things. I mean, we all know what goes on in a loo but it does sort of kill the glamour of a woman.
Maybe that's what 21st century gender studies is all about though - destroying the mystery of being a man/woman.
Posted by loggats (# 17643) on
:
Ok, I've reread my post... I wasn't hanging around and watching people (from a darkened corner). There was something of a queue and everyone had to wait. Which basically means that unisex toilets would mean that men will have to wait just as long as women do to use the bog.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
We're facing this problem at my work now, with a trangender (F to M) student who wants to use the men's washroom and feels that's more appropriate for him. Not all the guys are comfortable with it as they tend to think of him as a girl dressed in boy's clothing, and our worry is that if we allow/encourage him to use the bathroom he prefers (which as we understand it he has every right to do, and we ought to allow) we cannot guarantee his safety if some other young man takes offense and decides to beat him up in the bathroom.
Our ideal solution is to get a single-person washroom put in between the men's and women's washrooms, which would be good for transgender people and the several others we have who for various reasons (anxiety, IBS, etc) are uncomfortable going into a public restroom with multiple stalls, but we've been told the the cost of adding this extra washroom would be prohibitive.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
For facilities which don't have a high volume of traffic, I'm in favour of individual non-specific bathrooms (complete with sink and bin in each) over sex-specific bathrooms with stalls. Just so long as they are equipped with a proper door and are actually a separate bathroom, I don't think it would be good to simply remove urinals and declassify the high volume bathrooms.
Most places in Australia already have them even if they do also have the high volume bathrooms with stalls and urinals. I'm talking the larger individual bathrooms that equipped with facilities for people with disabilities and for parents/caregivers to take care of small children. It's not too far a stretch to give everybody individual bathrooms.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
After all, who has separate toilet facilities for males and females in their own homes? I would like to see unisex facilities with individual handbasins etc. Let's do away with urinals which always seem rather unhygenic to me.
Posted by loggats (# 17643) on
:
Urinals are amazingly convenient!
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
After all, who has separate toilet facilities for males and females in their own homes?
Who invites strangers into their home to piddle and poo?
Posted by loggats (# 17643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
After all, who has separate toilet facilities for males and females in their own homes?
Who invites strangers into their home to piddle and poo?
Have a friend who (at the age of 14 or something) was lost in a city far from home, randomly knocked on some old dear's door and asked to use her loo. She was happy to oblige and gave him a cup of tea too.
Takes all sorts.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Let's do away with urinals which always seem rather unhygenic to me.
I don't think they're any worse than a toilet.
You certainly don't get the same amount of mist sprayed into the air when flushing them, and the majority of new shared men's bathroom facilities in Australia are now using bacteria-based flushless systems to cut down on water use. Some boys have trouble aiming, but that's no less a problem with a urinal than it is with a toilet.
The big plus with urinals is that at a large place like a stadium, they enable the majority of men to cycle through the toilets much faster than women. This in turn means that the men's facilities can be smaller than the women's (a ratio between 1:1.5 and 1:2 ratio is recommended these days) to equalise the rate they move through. Removing urinals and replacing them with stalls would just slow down everybody because the male:female ratio would have to be equalised or (at stadia which attract a majority male audience) even tipped in favour of the men and attract intolerable shrieking from the sexism-only-hurts-women crowd.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Have a friend who (at the age of 14 or something) was lost in a city far from home, randomly knocked on some old dear's door and asked to use her loo.
I respectfully submit that having to use the loo is the least of troubles for a 14-year-old lost in a strange city far from home.
Posted by loggats (# 17643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Have a friend who (at the age of 14 or something) was lost in a city far from home, randomly knocked on some old dear's door and asked to use her loo.
I respectfully submit that having to use the loo is the least of troubles for a 14-year-old lost in a strange city far from home.
He was dragged home a couple of days later, no harm done and a lot of funny stories to tell. But yep, it could have been tragic.
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on
:
While I can see the point of the op, and recognise the problem, there is no way known that I want to share a toilet with men - the possibilities for harassment are pretty horrendous in most work places. I would not have a problem with someone transgendered who identified as a woman, since that is how they identify: but your average "alpha male" hanging around making comments? Nope. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Of the possible solutions, I think the 3 separate facilities is probably the best, but recognise that cost is an issue. However, as TGC said above, most large public spaces here do have the third toilet, so it could be doable.
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on
:
Sorry, double posting to add: I know the issue of harassment goes both ways. Women are just as capable of harassing men using shared facilities. My response was just a gut reaction to the idea of unisex toilets.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Yahoo tried unisex facilities at one of their campuses. They reverted to separate after a short time. I am thinking one of the issues was cleanliness. They aimed to solve an issue, but an issue arose from aim.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Don't do away with urinals in public places. They take up less room than cubicles and also speed up the "flow of traffic". (Lord it is hard to write on this thread without some form of "double-entendre" creeping in).
But I can see an argument in favour of changing the design of public loos. Instead of M/F segregation, you could have U/C (Urinals/Cubicles) segregation. Make the cubicles and associated washroom facilities unisex. Can't see anything wrong with that. You've got some privacy apart from the handwashing, and even that could be resolved by providing facilities for each cubicle.
The main argument against that is probably cost, but it could be introduced gradually, for new builds and renovations.
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on
:
I live in the middle of rural nowhere, remote Victoria in Oz. My parish is 5 hrs drive wide thru mountains and national parks. Most public loos are in camp grounds and are very basic. Generally just one cubical.
Or we use trees and bushes.
But we manage!
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yahoo tried unisex facilities at one of their campuses. They reverted to separate after a short time. I am thinking one of the issues was cleanliness. They aimed to solve an issue, but an issue arose from aim.
Our aim is to keep these loos clean. Our aim depends on yours.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
I don't think that you can say to transgendered people, "There's an accessible toilet for the disabled, but you must use it too, because other people using shared facilities might feel a bit icky about you." You have to provide something less discriminatory.
One other issue of segregated facilities is the question of where a parent of one gender takes a child of another gender. This is where the accessible toilet can be useful for parents who need to assist, because of the size. But if a father is out shopping with a daughter who can toilet herself, but may need some assistance, so he needs to be outside the cubicle, where does he go? Take her through the urinals to a cubicle in the men's, or into the women's?
No clear answers, but the binary divide does have an impact.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I don't see the need for sex segregated restrooms at all. Especially in small places that have single user bathrooms... why not just have two for either sex instead of one for each alone?
I've long wondered this. I mean if it's a one-hole, and each person locks the door until they're done, why in the hell does it need to have a specification as to which sex can or cannot use it?
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
I've only used a unisex bathroom once (that I can remember) and it felt odd watching women leaving the stalls, walking over to wash their hands and doing all sorts of quite private things. I mean, we all know what goes on in a loo but it does sort of kill the glamour of a woman.
I'm having a hard time seeing what's glamorous about hand-washing.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yahoo tried unisex facilities at one of their campuses. They reverted to separate after a short time. I am thinking one of the issues was cleanliness. They aimed to solve an issue, but an issue arose from aim.
This would seem to suggest something of a bifurcation of humanity:
Males: are unclean and don't care about cleanliness
Females: are clean and care about cleanliness
Posted by loggats (# 17643) on
:
There's nothing glamorous about handwashing. Or farting. Especially not farting.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
I don't think that you can say to transgendered people, "There's an accessible toilet for the disabled, but you must use it too, because other people using shared facilities might feel a bit icky about you." You have to provide something less discriminatory. ...
No, with a big N or in capital letters. That's accepting that it is legitimately derogatory to someone else to associate them in any way with those with disabilities. That is seriously insulting to those with the more usual disabilities.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I think the assumption that mixed gender toilets will result in harassment or people getting beaten up is a) depressing and b) solved by having a toilet attendant. I realise b) is expensive, but could be implemented in high volume areas - and could solve any ongoing cleaning problems too.
[ 04. May 2013, 09:19: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
That's exactly why I suggested single bathrooms (with sinks included so it can have a door straight off there into the corridor) rather than shared mixed-sex facilities.
As I was in the city today, I noticed that public toilets are starting to head this way as all of our parks now have the EXELOO automated self-cleaning single bathrooms instead of toilet blocks. They can look a bit silly at times, but they can also be built into existing structures as well as being on their own in the middle of a park.
The issue with directing people to use the single disability-friendly bathrooms could be made less discriminatory by referring to them as "single bathroom facilities" and placing a notice requesting that people give priority to people who use mobility aids and parents with small children.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This would seem to suggest something of a bifurcation of humanity:
Males: are unclean and don't care about cleanliness
Females: are clean and care about cleanliness
Having worked in a place where we had two single bathrooms that were not sex-specific, I can assure you that this is most definitely not true. For kids maybe, but for adults it's closer to going the other way.
[ 04. May 2013, 10:09: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on
:
Ha! I disagree.
As a student teacher I went into a (presumably female)staff toilet and was surprised at the unpleasant smell. Like a gents, I thought. On my way out I met a surprised looking man coming in, and bless him, he didn't comment. Neither did I.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I realised later I should have trusted my nose!
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Ha! I disagree.
As a student teacher I went into a (presumably female)staff toilet and was surprised at the unpleasant smell. Like a gents, I thought. On my way out I met a surprised looking man coming in, and bless him, he didn't comment. Neither did I.
I realised later I should have trusted my nose!
The place I was commenting on was a school too. The staff toilets no longer had the sex-specific signage on them because it was a 14/2 ratio of female/male staff. Both of the male staff were away on a camp at the time that I was working there temporarily and had to use the toilets, there was no escaping the blame that time.
I do agree with you when it comes to children's toilets though, it takes time to get used to aiming.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Women can be as unclean as men.* It is a function plumbing design which generally causes uncaring men to generate more mess than uncaring women.
By TGC
quote:
do agree with you when it comes to children's toilets though, it takes time to get used to aiming.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Indeed, some take decades.
*oh, could I tell you stories....
[ 04. May 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
I've only used a unisex bathroom once (that I can remember) and it felt odd watching women leaving the stalls, walking over to wash their hands and doing all sorts of quite private things. I mean, we all know what goes on in a loo but it does sort of kill the glamour of a woman.
Maybe that's what 21st century gender studies is all about though - destroying the mystery of being a man/woman.
Nope, trying hard. But still can't imagine what it is a woman can do - in the normal way of things! - in a public convenience that should 'kill the glamour'. Of course, if we tried to think of her as a person, rather than a 'glamorous' woman, that might reduce the problem we have with facing up to the fact she goes to the toilet like other human beings.
And what are all these 'all sorts of private things' that these women you saw, were doing in the public part of the lavatory that so de-glamorized them? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Having said that, I would prefer segregated loos myself. Not because I think they're needed as such. Just because most times I've had to access the man's toilet, they're usually much more of a sty than the woman's. No offence, guys!
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
This may have been covered on the ship before, but there was a primary school in Colorado where a male-to-female transexual girl was treated by a girl by the students and teachers but was asked to use a single gender-neutral bathroom or the teacher's bathrooms instead of the large girls' bathrooms. The school district justified it by saying that when the girl was older (ie, past puberty), some of the other female students might feel uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with her. The parents and child were so offended that they started homeschooling the girl pending a lawsuit trying to force the school to let her use the girls' bathroom.
So a third, single, gender neutral bathroom, even if it is not associated with the disabled or any other group, still feels discriminatory. It makes FTM transsexuals feel like less than a man and MTF transsexuals feel like less than a woman.
A lawmaker in Arizona proposed a law that would require that people, when asked, show that the gender on their government-issued ID matches the bathroom they use (transsexuals in that state are able to change the gender on their ID after surgery). That is an awfully discriminatory law and I doubt it will pass.
Of course some people may identify as intersex (biologically neither entirely male or female, at least in phenotype) or androgynous (not identifying as entirely male or entirely female, regardless of their biological sex at birth) and feel equally at home (or not at home) in either sex's bathrooms.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
A lawmaker in Arizona proposed a law that would require that people, when asked, show that the gender on their government-issued ID matches the bathroom they use (transsexuals in that state are able to change the gender on their ID after surgery). That is an awfully discriminatory law and I doubt it will pass.
Never underestimate the bigotry of the Arizona legislature.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I've been dotting in and out of public loos for a good few decades, and I can't say I've ever devoted much time to wondering whether any other users are, were, or ever have been, differently gendered. If the essential bit is clean, has paper and a door that locks, what odds?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Ok, so now the Arizona law is advancing in their legislature after being altered so it just prevents private establishments from being sued or penalized for not allowing transgender persons to use the bathroom of their choice on their property. It is still wrong. Sorry for posting out of date info above.
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Nope, trying hard. But still can't imagine what it is a woman can do - in the normal way of things! - in a public convenience that should 'kill the glamour'.
Nor can I; I've been wondering about it since I first read this thread several hours ago. Particularly "private things" done outside the cubicle... you really think we can look and smell this good all the time without recourse to hairbrush, perfume spray, lipstick and checking the mirror for things between the teeth at regular intervals?
I confess to not having given the question of transgender people using public toilets a great deal of thought and had kind of assumed there wouldn't be a problem with them using the gender that they identify with. How do Muslims and Haredic Jews manage about sharing bathrooms at home?
Nen - who unglamourously washes her hands at frequent intervals throughout the day.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
A lawmaker in Arizona proposed a law that would require that people, when asked, show that the gender on their government-issued ID matches the bathroom they use (transsexuals in that state are able to change the gender on their ID after surgery). That is an awfully discriminatory law and I doubt it will pass.
If you don't have your ID with you, do they make you hold it till you get home? Wait, don't tell me, I'll bet this law was mooted by a Republican.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I can see an argument in favour of changing the design of public loos. Instead of M/F segregation, you could have U/C (Urinals/Cubicles) segregation. Make the cubicles and associated washroom facilities unisex. Can't see anything wrong with that. You've got some privacy apart from the handwashing, and even that could be resolved by providing facilities for each cubicle.
Nice. So men who need to pee can go into a room with nothing but urinals and get out pretty quickly, while women who need to pee have to wait in line for a stall where now the odds are twice as many people are taking a long, smelly dump? (I hope that's not too unglamorous of me to say.)
A few weeks ago, I attended a lecture and after, darted into the restroom just to wash my hands (I had been late to the lecture and hadn't had a chance to wash the public transit off my hands). I went over to the sink and washed up, noticing, but somehow not registering, the line of men facing a wall over my left shoulder... until I started to leave, and passed a man who was headed for the sink. "Oh my gosh, I'm in the wrong room! I'm so sorry!" I gasped. "No problem," he presumed to say on behalf of all the men in the room. Oops. I should confess I'm not normally very concerned with gender and really consider myself androgynous. I do wonder how aware most of the men were of my presence there, at least before I said anything!
At work we have a shared bathroom in the vestry - it used to be a men's room back in the day when only men would be in a sacristry/vestry, so there are urinals in it. Once several years ago I was in there washing my hands (again with the hand-washing!) and a male priest came in, and, while chatting with me, almost started peeing in a urinal. I honestly wouldn't have cared. He caught himself, though, and said, "Oh, I should probably wait..." Normally, though, people who go into that bathroom close the door, and others knock first to see if it's currently a men's or women's room.
So for me, anyway, you can imagine, I don't care if a transperson wants to use the same restroom I'm in. I was in a class, though, with a transguy who hadn't come out to anyone else in the class, and I did notice that during break, he waited to use the restroom until the other men had. He was pre-op (if that's the right term for someone who never intended to have reassignment surgery anyway). I can imagine for transmen it must be harder, since, at least pre-op, they have to always use a stall, and that might be considered unmasculine. Then again, I have no idea whether some men prefer stalls to pee in and walk right past the urinals, because other than that once, I haven't exactly frequented men's rooms (at least not while they're in use!).
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
A related topic would be the question of a parent taking his/or her child into a restroom that matches the gender of the parent but not of the child.
I know that it's not wise nowadays to ask a stranger to help one's child in this regard, and that there really isn't any other option, but on those occasions when I've visited the loo and seen it, I've felt very uncomfortable indeed. I really don't want a strange child not of my gender to be present near where I am relieving myself.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
In Creamtealand, most of the new public loos are unisex. They get around the safety aspect by having a door that leads directly out onto the street, rather than a set of cubicles in one building. Some of the more rural loos can be in quite quiet and lonely places, so this is the only viable alternative to avoid people feeling fearful.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Years ago, when the all male suite organized college dormitory went co-ed the first step was all women suites.
There was a lovey photograph in the dormitory newspaper of an amenity in the ladies room in their suite which was missing in the other suites;
a wall mounted porcelain flower vase with plumbed in watering. It has a lovely arrangement of flowers in it ;-)
Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on
:
The Loo at my theological college had, for a time, a sign over the light switch which proclaimed:
"A light to enlighten the genitals"
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
A related topic would be the question of a parent taking his/or her child into a restroom that matches the gender of the parent but not of the child.
I know that it's not wise nowadays to ask a stranger to help one's child in this regard, and that there really isn't any other option, but on those occasions when I've visited the loo and seen it, I've felt very uncomfortable indeed. I really don't want a strange child not of my gender to be present near where I am relieving myself.
Best resolved by the parent and child using the accessible facility, which will almost never be marked as being sex-specific and will always open directly. Many of them actively encourage this use and will provide a fold-out table and disposable paper covers to allow a parent/carer to change a small child's nappy.
Some places even take this a step further and include extra rooms which are exclusively designed for parents with children. I've only seen this a few times though, at major shopping centres and a medium-large church which got it funded by the government as part of a multi-use facility also used by the adjacent school for assemblies and performances.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
I mean, we all know what goes on in a loo but it does sort of kill the glamour of a woman.
"Kill the glamour"? Really?
Maybe if you tried thinking of women as people, you'd have less of a problem with this.
I don't really see a need for sex-segregated loos, myself.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Like some guy waving his wang at a wall with his pants bunched around his hips is the prettiest picture in the world.
Do you know that first public toilets were not only unisex, but open-plan? Bunch of delicate little hothouse flowers we are, nowadays.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I can see an argument in favour of changing the design of public loos. Instead of M/F segregation, you could have U/C (Urinals/Cubicles) segregation. Make the cubicles and associated washroom facilities unisex. Can't see anything wrong with that. You've got some privacy apart from the handwashing, and even that could be resolved by providing facilities for each cubicle.
Nice. So men who need to pee can go into a room with nothing but urinals and get out pretty quickly, while women who need to pee have to wait in line for a stall where now the odds are twice as many people are taking a long, smelly dump? (I hope that's not too unglamorous of me to say.)
You missed the redesign bit. In the same space, you have the same number of cubicles as before in segregated M/F toilets, only under this idea they're all available for use by either sex. Greater flexibility.
In practice, you get loads of unoccupied cubicles in public men-only toilets lots of the time.
In this kind of combo solution, you actually reduce cubicle waiting time for women - though you might increase it for men.
Trust me, that's the way it would work. Urinals keep men out of cubicles, speeds things up for women. At the cost of sharing the same smelly dump zone. Simples.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Stalls with a lock. No urinals.
And wash your hands.
And, for Pete's sake, flush.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
I want privacy.
Visual, auditory and olfactory privacy.
Exiting my stall in a clearly labelled ladies loo in a bus station 3 weeks ago (and on my way to church!) I was surprised by a young (18-25) year old man "washing his hands and face". That's what he told me in reply to my assertive "What are you doing here?!". He got very nasty actually and I was a little shaken.
Then 2 min later 3 other young men came in and I physically pushed them out and barred the doorway with out-stretched arms gripping the door frame. (More hand-washing!)
There was a crowd of women inside - including older women and women more religiously observant than I. The presence of young men full of testosterone and energy-drink-caffeine-fuelled aggression is not only unpleasant but unexpected and therefore disorienting and frightening.
And I say that as an old time porn-shop smashing feminist so I am no shrinking violet.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
... The parents and child were so offended that they started homeschooling the girl pending a lawsuit trying to force the school to let her use the girls' bathroom. ...
One does occasionally wonder whether some people go through life looking for opportunities to be offended.
There are always lawyers willing to oblige - for a fee.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There's been previous discussion of the specific transgender case on this thread.
Enoch, to save you or anyone else wading through it all, here is Nicole Maines' dad talking about the family's experiences. Clearly he and his wife did not go out of their way to find an opportunity to be offended. He's a loving parent who has been on a journey.
[The Maines lost the court case, BTW. I don't think they lost the argument.]
[ 05. May 2013, 09:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
The Loo at my theological college had, for a time, a sign over the light switch which proclaimed:
"A light to enlighten the genitals"
"All wee like sheep."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
My apologies Barnabas. I did not realise this had arisen out of another thread. I had followed the earlier part of the other thread but lost interest, largely given up on it, and missed this reference completely. I withdraw my comment on this case (except for the bit about lawyers). It shows how one could so easily jump to a conclusion that looked fairly feasible based on the limited information in this thread.
[ 05. May 2013, 18:11: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Have a friend who (at the age of 14 or something) was lost in a city far from home, randomly knocked on some old dear's door and asked to use her loo.
I respectfully submit that having to use the loo is the least of troubles for a 14-year-old lost in a strange city far from home.
Unless, like me, one suffers from moderate to severe irritable bowel disease!! Mine is often induced by stress of even the mildest sort... I'd say being lost in a city far from home qualifies for a bout of I.B.D. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
quote:
I mean, we all know what goes on in a loo but it does sort of kill the glamour of a woman.
Yes, because God forbid we see women as living, breathing, real people who shit and piss! Oh, some women fart and vomit, too. So much for glamour. Hope that doesn't kill your romantic notions.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
The5thMary: Yes, because God forbid we see women as living, breathing, real people who shit and piss!
I'm sorry, but I've been led to believe that women only go to the bathroom to powder their noses.
Posted by Pia (# 17277) on
:
I have recently authorised the 'rebranding' of one of the loos in the building where I work as a 'non gender-specific' loo. We have segregated men's and women's facilities already, and some accessible loos, and one or two single-user facilities.* I am very happy for these to be clearly signposted as non gender-specific. Anyone who wants single-sex can use the single-sex loos, but trans people, people who need to use the one nearest to hand, and people who don't - if you'll pardon the pun - give a shit, can use the non gender-specific loo, without it needing to be specifically designated as being there for trans people and thus in some way 'labelling' its users.
*I do realise that we are lucky to have such an embarrassment of riches in the restroom department!
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
I also reckon that bogs for men, women and unisex are good ideas. I know that us men tend to be quicker than women, but I don't want women present when I've having a piss. Therefore, having extra bogs are useful.
In Taize, by the way, I was responsible for cleaning both male and female areas. There was no difference in cleanliness between then.
In my private life I notice that, as women don't tend to lift the toilet seat up, they don't notice the marks they leave and therefore do not clean them.
Still, coming back to the point, as pointed out here, such is our binary hegemony that we need to discuss this. Having three sets of bogs can be defeatism. Funny, saying that, I knew a male-to-female transexual and I wouldn't mind her being present when I was having a piss.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
Both of my two previous churches had conversions to add toilet facilities; one in a space off the church lobby and one in the hall. Each conversion added two toilet cubicles, neither of them gender-specific and without complete air separation (dividers did not go all the way to the ceiling; I can't remember if they went all the way to the floor).
I didn't like using either of them. I'm okay with using public toilet cubicles, but I didn't like the idea of Granny Miggins hearing, smelling or otherwise being aware of me in there! It's probably more because I knew Granny Miggins; I think I would have been less uncomfortable if it was Mr Miggins in the neighbouring cubicle, but still uncomfortable.
Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on
:
Has this thread got rather bogged down?
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yahoo tried unisex facilities at one of their campuses. They reverted to separate after a short time. I am thinking one of the issues was cleanliness. They aimed to solve an issue, but an issue arose from aim.
That is interesting. I never knew that. They never did anything like that at HQ.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
The5thMary: Yes, because God forbid we see women as living, breathing, real people who shit and piss!
I'm sorry, but I've been led to believe that women only go to the bathroom to powder their noses.
And chat. Don't forget the chatting (which I suppose might be another reason why women want separate facilities ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yahoo tried unisex facilities at one of their campuses. They reverted to separate after a short time. I am thinking one of the issues was cleanliness. They aimed to solve an issue, but an issue arose from aim.
That is interesting. I never knew that. They never did anything like that at HQ.
My apologies, I meant to say YouTube, specifically YouTube Space.
[ 06. May 2013, 17:34: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
la vie en rouge: And chat. Don't forget the chatting (which I suppose might be another reason why women want separate facilities ).
In fact, this would be a good reason why I would favour them too. I like some room for quiet contemplation when I'm alone with my, erm, willy.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
At the moment, when entering a female only loo block, I do not expect to see a man in there. Therefore, if I was to see one, alarm bells in my mind would start ringing and I'd make a very quick exit, assuming the reason to be malign.
If the loo block was unisex, how would I know if the man's intentions were malign or whether he just needed to use the facilities?
(Remember I'm talking particularly from the viewpoint of loos in quiet rural areas.)
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
At the moment, when entering a female only loo block, I do not expect to see a man in there. Therefore, if I was to see one, alarm bells in my mind would start ringing and I'd make a very quick exit, assuming the reason to be malign.
If the loo block was unisex, how would I know if the man's intentions were malign or whether he just needed to use the facilities?
(Remember I'm talking particularly from the viewpoint of loos in quiet rural areas.)
How do you know you aren't going to get jumped by the guy in the bus shelter, or the sole male attendant in the garage, or the male standing behind the cashpoint etc. What is it that makes you uniquely vulnerable washing your hands ? (Or males in a shared toilet facility likely to be much more dangerous than those in other kind of shared facility.)
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
la vie en rouge: And chat. Don't forget the chatting (which I suppose might be another reason why women want separate facilities ).
In fact, this would be a good reason why I would favour them too. I like some room for quiet contemplation when I'm alone with my, erm, willy.
Generally people don't try to talk to you when you are in a cubicle. (I think the most conversation I have had in a public toilet has been, 'there's no loo roll in that one' or 'excuse me' on the way to the hand drier.)
[ 06. May 2013, 21:30: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Generally people don't try to talk to you when you are in a cubicle. (I think the most conversation I have had in a public toilet has been, 'there's no loo roll in that one' or 'excuse me' on the way to the hand drier.)
Whilst stood queueing in the Ladies in a pub once, I had a conversation with a girl in a cubicle. Unfortunately, she refused to close the door and wouldn't stop talking until she was done. Only happened the once, but once was enough.
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
la vie en rouge: And chat. Don't forget the chatting (which I suppose might be another reason why women want separate facilities ).
In fact, this would be a good reason why I would favour them too. I like some room for quiet contemplation when I'm alone with my, erm, willy.
Generally people don't try to talk to you when you are in a cubicle. (I think the most conversation I have had in a public toilet has been, 'there's no loo roll in that one' or 'excuse me' on the way to the hand drier.)
I'd agree that you don't expect conversation from strangers but in my experience if you go into a loo with a friend it's quite usual to carry on the conversation you're having while you're both in the cubicles as well as while washing your hands and standing at the mirror reapplying your lipstick.
I guess we're all talking about the kind of shared loos which are reasonably nice, not the sort that you only visit if you're desperate and get out of as soon as possible. Some restaurant and hotel toilets are positively delightful... individual rolled up hand towels, flowers, soap, hand cream, mirrors, armchairs... The sort you visit even if you don't need to, just for the experience.
Nen - Nice Toilets I Have Known.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Backward colonial living on the Canadian prairies here, beware of avatar twins.
In small towns and rural, when the women's can is in use, women commonly use the men's. And why not. Men efficiently pee, and the toilet is vacant. The stall is lockable.
It is also common that there is only one potty, and all use it in turn. Also, sometimes the men's room doesn't have a toilet at all, just a trough for pee, all lined up, trying to aim away from those on the left and right (this is the small town legion or church hall experience). Men have to use the women's for the other job.
Finally, it is rather clear that the person who is to use the facilities makes the decision which one to use. I've never seen anyone bat an eye about anyone using whatever one they want to. Here I'm referring to gas stations, public buildings, sports arenas.
Now, if you're actually bathing, there might be a difference in conduct, i.e., a shower, locker or change room. Though we commonly have 3 change rooms: men, women and family. When crowded anyone will use the family one.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
How do you know you aren't going to get jumped by the guy in the bus shelter, or the sole male attendant in the garage, or the male standing behind the cashpoint etc. What is it that makes you uniquely vulnerable washing your hands ? (Or males in a shared toilet facility likely to be much more dangerous than those in other kind of shared facility.)
Because in the sort of loos I'm talking about, nobody would hear you scream - you are in rarely used facilities, not in a well-populated place. It's probably rather different in busy cities, although there are documented cases of young girls being attacked in supermarket loos so not impossible. A man lurking in a place normally reserved for women would alert you to danger, a man in a unisex area probably wouldn't, even if he actually is a danger. It would be harder to read the signs.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I think you are right to be suspicious of somebody of the opposite gender in a segregated area - because then you are talking about breaking boundaries etc. But that is different from planning unisex facilities in the first place.
Isolation is easier to solve, you put a jackpot alarm in the facility itself and cctv on the outer door.
But I suppose my point is, that there are many places where you may end up alone with men. Driving lessons for example. Usually we don't read that as a threat, you are - of course - far more likely to be attacked at home by someone you know.
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on
:
I'm just dandy with the idea of a unisex toilet- most of the month. But the sound of a maxi pad or tampon wrapper opening up is pretty hard to disguise, and I don't ant to explain that one to any of the guys I work with. And they really don't want to know!
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The bathrooms at Lewis-Clark College in Portland OR are gender neutral. It is not unusual to see male and female dorm mates sharing the same bathroom. One shaving while the other is putting on makeup.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AmyBo:
I'm just dandy with the idea of a unisex toilet- most of the month. But the sound of a maxi pad or tampon wrapper opening up is pretty hard to disguise, and I don't ant to explain that one to any of the guys I work with. And they really don't want to know!
(wonders idly what a man would make of the suctiony sound of mooncup removal / replacement)
lightbulb moment!
Having puzzled for several days over loggats remark:
quote:
I mean, we all know what goes on in a loo but it does sort of kill the glamour of a woman.
starts to think loggats may have a point.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I'd think after you'd heard the sounds of several of your co-workers of both genders after a staff meeting that involved a huge Chipotle order, the sound of a thin strip of paper separating from adhesive would no longer hold the horror it once did.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I take Doublethink's point about how, if starting from scratch, it wouldn't be seen as such a problem. But the current situation has certain activities seen as more personal than others (ones involving bodily functions and nudity or part nudity). So mixed changing areas in shops, sports halls and swimming pools would be similar to mixed loo areas. Somehow, mixed sex individual cubicles, with a door leading straight out into a well-populated area, seem more safe than communal areas behind a general entrance for all of these activities.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
One shaving while the other is putting on makeup.
I wonder which does what? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[Miss Amanda will get her wrap.]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
There's something unusually prudish about this thread, that perhaps needs a little Canadian informality, I suspect a large number of my American friends might have me broaden this to those who live in the great open spaces in the western part of the continent.
A couple of things to keep us grounded (I didn't realize what a Big Deal this is for some of you). First, 58% of people in India just try to find a patch of ground somewhere, and I suppose try to avoid eye contact.
Second, I wondered how many of you have ever used a two-holer? or gone in the woods? (the first thing to consider is location BTW)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I trekked the wilderness with nary a loo in sight. It is different within civilisation. In an urban environment, I do not care to share with anyone, though do as a necessity.
Every culture has those things in plain view which they do not see, necessity often rules this.
Yes, the west can be a bit precious because it can be. Pointing this out is of interest, but will change behaviour and discomfort not a whit.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I don't see the need for sex segregated restrooms at all. Especially in small places that have single user bathrooms... why not just have two for either sex instead of one for each alone?
I can see it might be more problimatical with larger rooms with more accomidations, but as doubtingthomas said, if everything is inside a stall there shouldn't be any problem.
Nor me. I have worked in two schools in which the staff loos have been unisex. So long as the men are reminded to sit down I'm fine with it!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm not sure whether this is a tangent or not.
I can see that being a transgender person, is a tragic situation for a person to find themselves in. Which door you go into when you need to go is only one, and not the most difficult, of the problems you have to face.
However, I am in my sixties and as far as I know, I've only met one transgender person and two transvestites - who I know aren't transgender anyway. If it hasn't been pertinent to you, it doesn't rattle your cage. There are other social issues that you will regard as higher priority.
That though isn't my question.
I've picked up elsewhere, and it's clear from some comments on this thread, that there are people who think that as an issue of principle, of social dogma, we ought all, whether male or female, be required to use the same loos, washing and changing facilities. We all do in our own homes, but the general practice in the public sphere has, all my life, been to have separate ones.
I can see that people building hotels, pubs, public buildings etc might want to argue this so as to save money. I can also see that they might be grateful to be able to dredge up arguements that sound high minded to conceal their grubby motive.
However, I haven't really encountered this debate. So I can't actually see what the high minded, issues of principle, social dogma etc reasons are. It clearly isn't just the possible needs of the very small number of transgender people. Can somebody tell me please?
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
First, 58% of people in India just try to find a patch of ground somewhere, and I suppose try to avoid eye contact.
I couldn't access your link (slow internet connection today) but my understanding (from charities who supply toilets!) is that for people without toilets in India, the experience is very different for men compared to women.
I have heard that it is far more common to see a man squatting in public than a woman -women are expected (as far as possible) to only come out after dark to meet their needs.
One charity magazine printed a story of a teenage girl's delight in the new enclosed toilet in her area, as she was fed up with risking harrassment by men every time she needed to answer a call of nature.
Another charity (run entirely by well-off locals) went to women in a slum, and asked them specifically what would improve their quality of life. A toilet block was high on the list. It turned out to be very easy to fund, as the government had already allocated money for it, but the money had been "misplaced" by disinterested officials. The charity's tactic was to point out to the officials how much respect and gratitude they would receive for doing their public duty, and to ensure that once the amenities were built, the beneficent officials involved got to cut the ribbon and be photographed for the local papers on opening day!
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
Once the amenities were built, the beneficent officials involved got to cut the ribbon and be photographed for the local papers on opening day!
Doing what?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I don't see the need for sex segregated restrooms at all. Especially in small places that have single user bathrooms... why not just have two for either sex instead of one for each alone?
I can see it might be more problimatical with larger rooms with more accomidations, but as doubtingthomas said, if everything is inside a stall there shouldn't be any problem.
Nor me. I have worked in two schools in which the staff loos have been unisex. So long as the men are reminded to sit down I'm fine with it!
Male teachers in some schools hardly have time to sit down - indeed to go to the loo in the first place.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
At my last place of work, the unisex loo was more popular simply because it was on the ground floor, therefore took much less effort to get there.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Various:
--I wouldn't feel safe in a multi-stall unisex bathroom. People do get assaulted in restrooms--and they're already half-dressed, anyway, at least the women.
--I worked at a small company that had one unisex one-stall bathroom. There were maybe 10-12 men and 2 women. Besides the aiming problem mentioned upthread, how shall I put this...different hormones have different smells. And one kind can have a very bad scent to people who have another kind--especially if one group is in the majority.
--There should be a way to provide facilities for transgendered folks, but I don't think group toilets for all is the answer. Americans, at least, tend to like privacy in the "throne room". If that's taken away to accommodate trans folks, non-trans will feel resentful--and that won't help acceptance of trans people.
They could use the unisex one-stallers for disabled folks--but that would implicitly label them as disabled. Maybe just some extra one-stallers, with both male and female symbols on the door to show unisex status??
--This may not be the place to discuss this (if there is one!, but how do guys cope with the usual "everyone front and center" design of men's restrooms? Seems like an opportunity for all sorts of tension and discomfort.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
What bothers me a bit about this discussion is that there's not (to my knowledge) anyone trans involved. Now that may be an inevitable consquence of the overwhelming majority of shipmates being cis, but I'm generally a bit unhappy whenever this kind of conversation becomes "what do we do with THEM?" where the group discussed isn't even in the discussion. This happens with all minority and marginalised groups to some extent, but it seems clear to me that the first priority is finding out from transpeople what they themselves think the solution should be, and working from there. Because the fact is that as a ciswoman, I might have an opinion on this (I don't particularly feel strongly either way) but as it doesn't have the same impact on my life as it would on a transperson's life, my opinion shouldn't be given the same weight.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
What bothers me a bit about this discussion is that there's not (to my knowledge) anyone trans involved. Now that may be an inevitable consquence of the overwhelming majority of shipmates being cis, but I'm generally a bit unhappy whenever this kind of conversation becomes "what do we do with THEM?" where the group discussed isn't even in the discussion. This happens with all minority and marginalised groups to some extent, but it seems clear to me that the first priority is finding out from transpeople what they themselves think the solution should be, and working from there. Because the fact is that as a ciswoman, I might have an opinion on this (I don't particularly feel strongly either way) but as it doesn't have the same impact on my life as it would on a transperson's life, my opinion shouldn't be given the same weight.
True. But it's good that the discussion is being had by people who presumably have no real interest in it. Many of us are informed by what our trans friends have to say, and by paying attention to their experiences. Not the same as being trans yourself, but it's the best we can do.
Actually, I came here today to post this link:
Gender-neutral bathrooms become law in Philly
[ 10. May 2013, 20:10: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--This may not be the place to discuss this (if there is one!, but how do guys cope with the usual "everyone front and center" design of men's restrooms? Seems like an opportunity for all sorts of tension and discomfort.
For people who may feel uneasy about using a urinal for whatever reason, they can use one of the cubicles.
This applies to me every now and then, because of the awkwardness of dealing with cycling shorts.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--This may not be the place to discuss this (if there is one!, but how do guys cope with the usual "everyone front and center" design of men's restrooms? Seems like an opportunity for all sorts of tension and discomfort.
Eyes front, no talking! And hence no tension or discomfort.
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
A related topic would be the question of a parent taking his/or her child into a restroom that matches the gender of the parent but not of the child.
I often use the urinal with a toddler of either sex on my hip. Sure - if there's a family facility I'll probably use that, but there often isn't. IMO, the same rule applies to toilet facilities as to changing rooms. Once a child gets to be about 6 or 7, he or she should use the facilities appropriate to his or her sex. Younger than that, and they go in with whichever parent or other carer happens to be there.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
This may not be the place to discuss this (if there is one!, but how do guys cope with the usual "everyone front and center" design of men's restrooms? Seems like an opportunity for all sorts of tension and discomfort.
Take the quiz to see if you're an, erm, whiz on this topic.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--This may not be the place to discuss this (if there is one!, but how do guys cope with the usual "everyone front and center" design of men's restrooms? Seems like an opportunity for all sorts of tension and discomfort.
Some of them
don't.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I've read the comments and followed the links, but none of them have shed any real light on the question I asked two days ago. I accept that it's a bit of a tangent, but can any of you out there help?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
This may not be the place to discuss this (if there is one!, but how do guys cope with the usual "everyone front and center" design of men's restrooms? Seems like an opportunity for all sorts of tension and discomfort.
As long as I can recall, I've had what my doctor calls "bashful bladder" - I can't urinate at normal urinals if someone else is in the room, or provide a specimen on demand. So I use a stall when necessary. Strange, because I went to a boys school and had no problems showering after a game of rugby, changing after swimming and so forth.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So long as the men are reminded to sit down I'm fine with it!
WTF?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So long as the men are reminded to sit down I'm fine with it!
WTF?
Have you cleaned round a loo (and the surrounding floor) after it's been used by men standing up?
Here is a good explanation as to why the pee doesn't always end up where it should.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Since being with my partner of 12 years I've come around to peeing sitting down . Don't give it a second thought now . You could say it helps keep the peace where toilet-seat 'up/down' war is concerned .
At work I have to do it standing due to lack of proper facilities. Seem to have learnt to switch between the two without developing a split personality or such like.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Since being with my partner of 12 years I've come around to peeing sitting down . Don't give it a second thought now . You could say it helps keep the peace where toilet-seat 'up/down' war is concerned .
Traitor!
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Traitor!
Yeah I know .
Maybe us guys have just gotta accept that society has changed somewhat from the days of Henry V111 when blokes used to pee in the fire hearth.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Since being with my partner of 12 years I've come around to peeing sitting down . Don't give it a second thought now . You could say it helps keep the peace where toilet-seat 'up/down' war is concerned .
Traitor!
I'm a traitor the other way. I don't give a shit if the seat is left up, I am a big girl and can put it down myself.
Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Since being with my partner of 12 years I've come around to peeing sitting down . Don't give it a second thought now . You could say it helps keep the peace where toilet-seat 'up/down' war is concerned .
At work I have to do it standing due to lack of proper facilities. Seem to have learnt to switch between the two without developing a split personality or such like.
Why don't you just put the seat down afterwards? I hate to be too graphic about this, but I find its much easier to 'get it all out' standing up.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Since being with my partner of 12 years I've come around to peeing sitting down . Don't give it a second thought now . You could say it helps keep the peace where toilet-seat 'up/down' war is concerned .
At work I have to do it standing due to lack of proper facilities. Seem to have learnt to switch between the two without developing a split personality or such like.
Why don't you just put the seat down afterwards? I hate to be too graphic about this, but I find its much easier to 'get it all out' standing up.
No compromise. Leave the seat up.
I agree with "getting it all out".
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Since being with my partner of 12 years I've come around to peeing sitting down . Don't give it a second thought now . You could say it helps keep the peace where toilet-seat 'up/down' war is concerned .
Traitor!
I'm a traitor the other way. I don't give a shit if the seat is left up, I am a big girl and can put it down myself.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I keep dipping into this thread to see if anyone's going to answer my question. It looks as though they aren't.
Altogether, too much detail at the moment.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I keep dipping into this thread to see if anyone's going to answer my question. It looks as though they aren't.
Altogether, too much detail at the moment.
Is your question as to whether the number or transgender people needed to be accommodated might be insignificant?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I keep dipping into this thread to see if anyone's going to answer my question. It looks as though they aren't.
Altogether, too much detail at the moment.
Is your question as to whether the number or transgender people needed to be accommodated might be insignificant?
No. That's why I said it might be a tangent.
What I was asking was why some people seem to think that as an issue of principle, of social dogma, the rest of us, whether male or female, should be required to use the same loos, washing and changing facilities, whether we like it or not.
I'd say 'unsegregated' except that in some other countries that might be assumed to be talking about race not sex.
That isn't the case in the link about Massachusetts, where it's clear that what is being proposed is a third option rather like the individual loos for the disabled that currently exist - well, they do here. I don't whether they do in Massachusetts.
i.e. Why shouldn't men and women carry on being provided with separate loos etc, since most of us prefer it that way?
[ 13. May 2013, 19:26: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Why don't you just put the seat down afterwards? I hate to be too graphic about this, but I find its much easier to 'get it all out' standing up.
Suppose I could do . However I've come around to this for the reason Boogie outlined . BTW I wear elasticated waistband trousers at home.
Could be over-thinking this but I wonder if a school of thought still exists among us fellas that goes something like -- why shouldn't the Missis clean up my pee, that's what I keep her for isn't it ? 'Treat em mean, keep em keep' an all that.
Such domestic philosophy , merited or not, probably warrants it's own thread .
< Sorry Enoch , I promise to butt out for being off topic.>
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What I was asking was why some people seem to think that as an issue of principle, of social dogma, the rest of us, whether male or female, should be required to use the same loos, washing and changing facilities, whether we like it or not.
I'd say 'unsegregated' except that in some other countries that might be assumed to be talking about race not sex.
That isn't the case in the link about Massachusetts, where it's clear that what is being proposed is a third option rather like the individual loos for the disabled that currently exist - well, they do here. I don't whether they do in Massachusetts.
i.e. Why shouldn't men and women carry on being provided with separate loos etc, since most of us prefer it that way?
People will be discomfited regardless of which solution is used. As far as what "most" prefer, there exists legislation which has challenged that for the benefit of minorities, so I am not certain it is a completely valid argument.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Enoch, I think people are trying to find a solution to bathrooms that works for transgender people and hopefully genderqueer too. Same sex would be one solution. Also, it would save a lot of space or reduce waiting in bathrooms.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
It is clear that, for men, urinals are more efficient than cubicles, both in terms of time and space, so removing urinals in favour of unisex cubicles is a mistake in a high-traffic facility.
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What I was asking was why some people seem to think that as an issue of principle, of social dogma, the rest of us, whether male or female, should be required to use the same loos, washing and changing facilities, whether we like it or not.
I'd say 'unsegregated' except that in some other countries that might be assumed to be talking about race not sex.
...
i.e. Why shouldn't men and women carry on being provided with separate loos etc, since most of us prefer it that way?
I don't firmly believe that they shouldn't "carry on" with that option, but I do think that it's necessary for most of us to realize the ways in which some of us are impacted.
This (warning links to a site that might not be utterly Safe for Work) is a voice that I think needs to be heard on this:
quote:
Since my gender presentation is most often mistaken for a teenage boy, the thought of using public bathrooms is anxiety-creating for any number of reasons. I hate the second looks, the stares, those who are bold enough to ask me if I'm in the right place. The vitriol in the woman's eyes when we made contact in the mirror — how did I inspire such a feeling in her, the same I've seen in others who did not want me in that space? At the same time, I feel guilty and ashamed that my presence in the women's bathroom was read by this woman as a threat. I don't want to make anyone feel unsafe or uncomfortable, but my very existence within that space had done exactly what I'd wanted to avoid. The fact she was so upset by my being there, maybe even fearful enough, that she needed to summon the manager to identify me and remove me, is scary to me; something I did not want to do to this woman.
This person's ability to comfortably deal with an innate biological need is badly impacted by how we do and see things right now, and she's not alone. There may not be a solution that is eagerly embraced by and comfortable to everyone, but I think it's important that we keep thinking about this.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
One more difficulty of group unisex restrooms occurs to me. It's TMI, but I'll try to put it delicately.
Girls and women often have monthly hygiene matters to attend to. The results can be smelly and messy, and will likely be in a disposal in each stall. So men sharing these stalls will likely find out farrrrr more about these matters than they care to.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
We were goofing on that upthread.
As I said, in a closed stall all you are going to hear as far as 'woman stuff" is the rustling of a wrapper and the peeling of paper away from adhesive. Which if that noise is enough to make you collapse, stay away from Band-aids.
Other than that, one presumes sanitary products would be disposed of in the kind of covered container they currently are in women's rooms, which means the only way a guy would find out more than he wanted to is if he himself went on a fact-finding mission.
[ 14. May 2013, 04:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Since being with my partner of 12 years I've come around to peeing sitting down . Don't give it a second thought now . You could say it helps keep the peace where toilet-seat 'up/down' war is concerned .
Traitor!
I'm a traitor the other way. I don't give a shit if the seat is left up, I am a big girl and can put it down myself.
You'd think so, right? But then, you tell that to your Significant Other, he rejoices for a week in his freedom to leave the seat up, then a little voice whispers to him:"You're not arguing about the condition of the toilet. You are not proving your manliness via slovenliness. You must therefore actually pee on the seat to prove yourself worthy of testosterone."
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... you tell that to your Significant Other, he rejoices for a week in his freedom to leave the seat up, then a little voice whispers to him:"You're not arguing about the condition of the toilet. You are not proving your manliness via slovenliness. You must therefore actually pee on the seat to prove yourself worthy of testosterone."
Not just the seat - the floor too. I lived with three men until recently, and still do when the Boogielets visit.
Luckily we have three bathrooms now so I have my own - bliss!! We clean our own bathrooms so how much spray goes on to the seat/floor no problem whatever for me. The real problem, mind you, is unseen spray. My husband eventually agreed with me when he saw his in a shaft of sunlight (like dust in the air, it's usually invisible) He now sits down as a matter of course, unless in public loos.
(TMI anyone? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
We were goofing on that upthread.
As I said, in a closed stall all you are going to hear as far as 'woman stuff" is the rustling of a wrapper and the peeling of paper away from adhesive. Which if that noise is enough to make you collapse, stay away from Band-aids.
Other than that, one presumes sanitary products would be disposed of in the kind of covered container they currently are in women's rooms, which means the only way a guy would find out more than he wanted to is if he himself went on a fact-finding mission.
You'd think so. But, in many women's restrooms (and not just ones in gas stations or fast food restaurants), Things Aren't Attended To With Enough Frequency--thus overflowing their receptacles, and presenting problems with sights, smells, and sanitariness.
Not to mention women in the throes of cramps and PMS.
Or pumping breast milk with an electric gadget. (I know some workplaces have lactation rooms these days. But I've seen co-workers go through their routine in the main part of the restroom, for lack of any other place to pump their milk.)
Plus we often stay afterwards to chat, and I gather men usually don't do that.
FWIW.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
If the garbage receptacles are overflowing, I would presume everything else would be overflowing as well. (see Boogies' comment above.)Sanitary products would be the least of it, or at least on an even keel with the rest.
And I hate to keep returning to this vivid example but it would astound me if a guy would have a problem sitting in the stall next to a woman moaning from cramps-- how PMS would effect a bathroom experience is beyond me, unless you are implying that the woman would go on some sort of rampage and tear off toilet seats, to which I say, "I can't believe it's a woman suggesting that"--rather than, say, the stall next to a person of either gender (or mixed) who has just had a bad experience with a plate of nachos.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Aaand thank you ever so much for that mental image, dear Kelly.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
As I said, in a closed stall all you are going to hear as far as 'woman stuff" is the rustling of a wrapper and the peeling of paper away from adhesive. Which if that noise is enough to make you collapse, stay away from Band-aids.
Mooncups can be a bit ... ummm... squelchy sounding.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
So can other things I can think of that happen in bathrooms.
Is it perhaps that we want to think our gender is particularly disgusting or particularly unusual?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I don't think it's disgusting or unusual. But I also know it's not silent. I concur with The Guardian "Some undignified suction noises are a small price to pay" for the other massive advantages of the Mooncup.
[ 14. May 2013, 15:35: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Mooncups can be a bit ... ummm... squelchy sounding.
yeah but how many people do you know who actually use mooncups?
Plus which, a lot of other stuff sounds just as squelchy. I don't mean to keep banging this drum but I am really questioning the whole "Menstruation is the yuckiest thing going on in a public restroom" thing.
IOW, what Gwai said.
[ 14. May 2013, 17:30: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Well, I use a mooncup, and I think they're pretty widely used - you certainly see them for sale in enough shops. Maybe five / ten years ago, they'd have been unusual, but not now.
I don't think menstruation is yukky - but I also don't think it's necessarily silent. It's the audible aspect I'm arguing - not the yukky aspect.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Hmmm. Wonder if that's a pond thing. People seem unwilling to let go of their tampons around here.
Also, yeah I sensed you weren't one of the "yucky" crowd, but that seems to be the unspoken assumption in some of the comments up thread-- that men will disintegrate at any exposure to any hint of menstrual activity. Maybe we don't' give men enough credit to adjust. ANd my point is there is not all that much to adjust to.
Personally , I am with the "single occupant only" crowd; I have worked in facilities where that approach is taken, and it solves all kinds of problems-- the diaper problem, the accessibility problem, the acoustic ambiance problem--oops, but you still might see a Tampax wrapper in the garbage.
[ 14. May 2013, 18:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If the garbage receptacles are overflowing, I would presume everything else would be overflowing as well. (see Boogies' comment above.)Sanitary products would be the least of it, or at least on an even keel with the rest.
Not necessarily. In the UK, emptying the receptacles for sanitary products is often contracted out to a specialist company, which comes round every now and then, according to perceived need, so they can be badly overflowing while the normal garbage receptacles are emptied daily.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
OK.
The challenge in rural parts of California is that septic tanks often can't handle what city folk are used to flushing, so rural residents fall into the habit of putting the paper into the trash, and not flushing it at all. Boy, did that take some getting used to when I first came across it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Enoch, I think people are trying to find a solution to bathrooms that works for transgender people and hopefully genderqueer too. Same sex would be one solution. Also, it would save a lot of space or reduce waiting in bathrooms.
Thank you Gwai and Infinite_monkey for elucidating what the problem is seen to be. I have to say that the rest of the thread since, makes it abundantly clear that whatever the question, compelling everybody else to use the same loos is the wrong answer.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Personally , I am with the "single occupant only" crowd; I have worked in facilities where that approach is taken, and it solves all kinds of problems-- the diaper problem, the accessibility problem, the acoustic ambiance problem--oops, but you still might see a Tampax wrapper in the garbage.
But you do lose efficiency vs a room with urinals for men, and you lose efficiency by having enough footprint for one handbasin per stall, and what do you do - put a diaper changing table in every one?
Single-occupancy unisex is fine for low-occupancy facilities - the kind of place where you get one or two cubicles here and there - but doesn't scale efficiently.
Shared handbasins with unisex cubicles? I just don't know. At a previous job, women used to arrive in the morning to find one woman cyclist stripped to the waist at the handbasins giving herself a rub down with a flannel after getting sweaty on the way in.In my current job there are several men who like to run at lunchtime, and do the same thing. Yes, it would be better if we had showers, but we don't.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If the garbage receptacles are overflowing, I would presume everything else would be overflowing as well. (see Boogies' comment above.)Sanitary products would be the least of it, or at least on an even keel with the rest.
Not necessarily. In the UK, emptying the receptacles for sanitary products is often contracted out to a specialist company, which comes round every now and then, according to perceived need, so they can be badly overflowing while the normal garbage receptacles are emptied daily.
Yes. I've run into it in expensive office buildings. I think that, in the US, all the end-of-day bathroom cleaning is done by one group. But, well, some days there may be a need for more frequent attention, and that doesn't happen.
Re Kelly's responses upthread:
I wasn't suggesting that women all turn into raving PMS monsters in the restroom. (Though there are times...) Nor did I mean that we tear up the restroom. (Though sometimes stalls show signs of ill use, including doors and seats removed.)
I'm not saying that the used monthly products are worse than anything else in a bathroom, or that menstruation is dirty. BUT it's something that guys tend not to be used to nor comfortable around; and it's something that women tend to be both private and intense about.
So if you throw all these factors into one mixed-use restroom, with people finding out more about their co-workers than they ever wanted to know and with their own privacy being impinged, I don't think it will work well.
As I said upthread, I'm all for trans folks having their needs met in a respectful way. I just don't think that multi-stall unisex restrooms for all are they way to do it.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If the garbage receptacles are overflowing, I would presume everything else would be overflowing as well. (see Boogies' comment above.)Sanitary products would be the least of it, or at least on an even keel with the rest.
Not necessarily. In the UK, emptying the receptacles for sanitary products is often contracted out to a specialist company, which comes round every now and then, according to perceived need, so they can be badly overflowing while the normal garbage receptacles are emptied daily.
Yes. I've run into it in expensive office buildings. I think that, in the US, all the end-of-day bathroom cleaning is done by one group. But, well, some days there may be a need for more frequent attention, and that doesn't happen.
Re Kelly's responses upthread:
I wasn't suggesting that women all turn into raving PMS monsters in the restroom. (Though there are times...) Nor did I mean that we tear up the restroom. (Though sometimes stalls show signs of ill use, including doors and seats removed.)
I'm not saying that the used monthly products are worse than anything else in a bathroom, or that menstruation is dirty. BUT it's something that guys tend not to be used to nor comfortable around; and it's something that women tend to be both private and intense about.
So if you throw all these factors into one mixed-use restroom, with people finding out more about their co-workers than they ever wanted to know and with their own privacy being impinged, I don't think it will work well.
As I said upthread, I'm all for trans folks having their needs met in a respectful way. I just don't think that multi-stall unisex restrooms for all are they way to do it.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0