purplerat wrote:An innovation maybe but nothing too dramatic.

I was speaking with a coworker earlier today - completely unrelated to the current trans/bathroom topic - about high school gym classes, specifically pool usage. Apparently not too long ago it was a pretty big deal about not letting boys and girls swim in the pool at the same time during gym. I guess being half clothed or less in such close proximity was a big concern back then. People got over it though. They'll got over this.

The idea that people are any more going to use access to bathrooms or changing rooms to commit assaults is unfounded. We've gone from segregated to non-segregated in so many areas and it's not been a big deal yet.

Personally, I agree, but take account of people (especially women) who've voiced fear, some of whom are quoted in the Time article. They aren't evangelical shills arguing in bad faith, and neither are they voicing a blanket fear of trans people, but of stripping naked in front of people who're anatomically male: a lawsuit's just been filed in Chicago on this issue. Chicago; NYC: these aren't hick towns. The absolute last thing progressives want is dominionist fanatics gaining a foothold in major urban hubs.

I don't see any reason why trans people can't be included, just so long as inclusion's handled with care, which, TBF, the Chicago authorities are trying to do.

As for the moral majority, I may be giving 'em too much credit, but whatever they lack in empathy and open mindedness, they posses a certain low cunning, and have a knack for scaremongering. Thankfully the Donald couldn't give a tinker's cuss about this, so this latest front of the culture wars may yet die away.

meh, it wasn't all that long ago that very many people even out outside of fundie-hicks would be repulsed by homosexual PDAs. Many of the same exact reactions. They got over it, except for the fundie-hicks of course.

Yes, and opposition to gay people showing affection in public had no reasonable basis, it was purely "ick": there's a reasonable basis for not having unisex changing facilities (men have, on average, some 40 percent more upper body strength; it's reasonable for women to want to be segregated to lessen the risk of unwanted attention), unisex shared restrooms, co-ed dorms, unisex prisons, etc.

Trans people aren't, of course, a threat, have themselves been horrifically stigmatized and threatened, and this was a non-issue until fundies looked for a replacement for equal marriage as a wedge issue. We are, however, where we are, and the response can't make it worse. This isn't an argument for delaying inclusion, or withholding discrimination protections, but of implementing them in the right way.

Byron wrote: there's a reasonable basis for not having unisex changing facilities (men have, on average, some 40 percent more upper body strength; it's reasonable for women to want to be segregated to lessen the risk of unwanted attention)

You say that, but the majority of UK swimming pools now have unisex changing rooms and this development doesn't seem to have been controversial at all. It's certainly a great help for men with young daughters.

logical bob wrote:You say that, but the majority of UK swimming pools now have unisex changing rooms and this development doesn't seem to have been controversial at all. It's certainly a great help for men with young daughters.

Yup, and there's plenty unisex bathrooms, dorms, etc, but done in the right way (no "stalls" that barely exist, private cubicles to change in, etc). That's what I mean about making the change sensibly, such as freeing up federal funds to upgrade facilities, introduce private areas etc.

Byron wrote:Yes, and opposition to gay people showing affection in public had no reasonable basis, it was purely "ick": there's a reasonable basis for not having unisex changing facilities (men have, on average, some 40 percent more upper body strength; it's reasonable for women to want to be segregated to lessen the risk of unwanted attention), unisex shared restrooms, co-ed dorms, unisex prisons, etc.

Trans people aren't, of course, a threat, have themselves been horrifically stigmatized and threatened, and this was a non-issue until fundies looked for a replacement for equal marriage as a wedge issue. We are, however, where we are, and the response can't make it worse. This isn't an argument for delaying inclusion, or withholding discrimination protections, but of implementing them in the right way.

And adults are far greater than 40% stronger than children. Yet we have no problem with same gender adults and children sharing these facilities. Even older kids are at a similar disadvantage strength wise to what a woman would face against an average adult male. Yet I don't fret every time my 14 year old son goes into these facilities by himself on a daily basis. Why should I be more concerned about my wife who's stronger and more well equipped to protect herself being in the same situation?

Younger children are often accompanied by their guardians (of either gender), and there's been plenty fretting about children being targeted by perverts, frequently to unhinged degrees.

It's not for me to say you should be concerned. Many aren't; many are. Sensible adaptions like private cubicles, surveillance cameras in (communal and clothed!) areas, and hiring more attendants can be made to increase security, peace of mind, and ensure this doesn't become a decades long fight in a revived culture war.

Well I speak of children because that's who those concerned about gender neutral bathrooms seem the most concerned about. My point being that it's not reasonable to be more concerned about opposite gender adults alone with children in bathrooms than same gender adults.

I mean the first response I get when I say I have no problem with gender neutral bathrooms is "aren't you concerned about a man being in the same bathroom as your daughter?". What's reasonable about being concerned with that but not being equally concerned with my daughter being in a bathroom with a woman, or my son being in a bathroom with a man?

Another point worth mentioning is that gender neutral facilities would actually mean it's less likely that children need to be in the bathroom alone with a stranger since anybody can accompany them into the bathroom.

Byron wrote:
Yup, and there's plenty unisex bathrooms, dorms, etc, but done in the right way (no "stalls" that barely exist, private cubicles to change in, etc). That's what I mean about making the change sensibly, such as freeing up federal funds to upgrade facilities, introduce private areas etc.

...

Sensible adaptions like private cubicles, surveillance cameras in (communal and clothed!) areas, and hiring more attendants can be made

In other words, you expect taxpayers and small businesses to pay through the nose so that a tiny minority of people can have slightly more scope to indulge in their identity disorders?

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

Byron wrote:
Yup, and there's plenty unisex bathrooms, dorms, etc, but done in the right way (no "stalls" that barely exist, private cubicles to change in, etc). That's what I mean about making the change sensibly, such as freeing up federal funds to upgrade facilities, introduce private areas etc.

...

Sensible adaptions like private cubicles, surveillance cameras in (communal and clothed!) areas, and hiring more attendants can be made

In other words, you expect taxpayers and small businesses to pay through the nose so that a tiny minority of people can have slightly more scope to indulge in their identity disorders?

Maybe we could tax churches to pay for it, and more. A lot more.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

Byron wrote:
Yup, and there's plenty unisex bathrooms, dorms, etc, but done in the right way (no "stalls" that barely exist, private cubicles to change in, etc). That's what I mean about making the change sensibly, such as freeing up federal funds to upgrade facilities, introduce private areas etc.

...

Sensible adaptions like private cubicles, surveillance cameras in (communal and clothed!) areas, and hiring more attendants can be made

In other words, you expect taxpayers and small businesses to pay through the nose so that a tiny minority of people can have slightly more scope to indulge in their identity disorders?

I love the cartoon world a lot of conservatives seem to live in. Complaints about added expense are moot because the world is moving to individualized cubicles in most places due to ADA style requirements. A lot of small businesses in Canada already install individualized bathrooms, mainly because it's easier and takes less room ADA sized cubicles fitted into a larger bathroom that also require adding a tonne of room for maneuvering outside of said cubicle.

purplerat wrote:I mean the first response I get when I say I have no problem with gender neutral bathrooms is "aren't you concerned about a man being in the same bathroom as your daughter?". What's reasonable about being concerned with that but not being equally concerned with my daughter being in a bathroom with a woman,

Well purplerat, it probably has something to do with the fact that men sexually abuse and kidnap children far more often than women do.

or my son being in a bathroom with a man?

So what are you saying, that we should redistribute some of the kidnap and sexual abuse risk from boys to girls? Even if mothers weren't at a natural physical disadvantage relative to fathers in terms of defending against/deterring a would-be kidnapper or pedophile, I don't see how such a decision could ever be morally justified.

Another point worth mentioning is that gender neutral facilities would actually mean it's less likely that children need to be in the bathroom alone with a stranger since anybody can accompany them into the bathroom.

Not sure if allowing creepy uncles and male babysitters to accompany girls to public toilets is necessarily a good thing...


(EDIT: fixed typo)

purplerat wrote:

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

Byron wrote:
Yup, and there's plenty unisex bathrooms, dorms, etc, but done in the right way (no "stalls" that barely exist, private cubicles to change in, etc). That's what I mean about making the change sensibly, such as freeing up federal funds to upgrade facilities, introduce private areas etc.

...

Sensible adaptions like private cubicles, surveillance cameras in (communal and clothed!) areas, and hiring more attendants can be made

In other words, you expect taxpayers and small businesses to pay through the nose so that a tiny minority of people can have slightly more scope to indulge in their identity disorders?

Maybe we could tax churches to pay for it, and more. A lot more.

Or maybe we could exclusively tax you and your fellow neo-Marxists to pay for it, seeing as you're the ones who are so keen on the idea.

Lol.

felltoearth wrote:

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

Byron wrote:
Yup, and there's plenty unisex bathrooms, dorms, etc, but done in the right way (no "stalls" that barely exist, private cubicles to change in, etc). That's what I mean about making the change sensibly, such as freeing up federal funds to upgrade facilities, introduce private areas etc.

...

Sensible adaptions like private cubicles, surveillance cameras in (communal and clothed!) areas, and hiring more attendants can be made

In other words, you expect taxpayers and small businesses to pay through the nose so that a tiny minority of people can have slightly more scope to indulge in their identity disorders?

I love the cartoon world a lot of conservatives seem to live in. Complaints about added expense are moot because the world is moving to individualized cubicles in most places due to ADA style requirements.

And I love how "progressives" deftly move the goalposts whenever it suits their sanctimonious busy-body agenda. I was addressing Byron's ideas which included hiring more attendants, installing more surveillance cameras and "freeing up" federal funds to upgrade facilities. I was not discussing individualized bathrooms, nor evidently was Byron.

Even so, if such bathrooms have to be built in addition to or as a replacement for existing toilet facilities, then do the ADA requirements magically pay for themselves or do they come with a big fat government subsidy?

A lot of small businesses in Canada already install individualized bathrooms, mainly because it's easier and takes less room

Well if they truly are individualized bathrooms then the whole issue of gender identity is irrelevant, isn't it. Which means the neo-Marxists can drop this ridiculous moral crusade and concentrate their efforts on getting pedophilia recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation instead

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Lol.

One of your most intelligent posts yet.

I don't even understand why unisex toilets not just the norm, we accept them in our homes after all. If you look at the history of 'public conveniences' and yes as a public health professional I actually have, that these were frequently male convenience only in the 19th century 'female' shops, hats and milliners were the only option for females while pissoirs etc only available to males.
In real life modern experience I have seen in concert venues enormous lines for 'female' toilets causing women to attempt to use 'male' facilities, and have to accept that even stand up urinals can be unisex due to pressing need.
Why not make public facilities the same as home facilities? This really seems the best way forward and certainly in the long term more a more effective use. I have seen in some countries unisex cubicles with outside urinals.. discreetly or not placed for those whose needs are more limited privacy wise, and this also seems to work. Splitting conveniences equally by gender seems to benefit males on the whole, as urinals more space effective. Disabled people for a long time have had to accept unisex toilets as 'disabled' toilets, a suggestion that they are already a 3rd gender: men/women/disabled... Why is this so hard?

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I mean the first response I get when I say I have no problem with gender neutral bathrooms is "aren't you concerned about a man being in the same bathroom as your daughter?". What's reasonable about being concerned with that but not being equally concerned with my daughter being in a bathroom with a woman,

Well purplerat, it probably has something to do with the fact that men sexually abuse and kidnap children far more often than women do.

So then are you unaware that adult men can and do sexually abuse boys or do you just not care? Because that's the only way that works as an argument for keeping men out of women's bathrooms.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

Byron wrote:
Yup, and there's plenty unisex bathrooms, dorms, etc, but done in the right way (no "stalls" that barely exist, private cubicles to change in, etc). That's what I mean about making the change sensibly, such as freeing up federal funds to upgrade facilities, introduce private areas etc.

...

Sensible adaptions like private cubicles, surveillance cameras in (communal and clothed!) areas, and hiring more attendants can be made

In other words, you expect taxpayers and small businesses to pay through the nose so that a tiny minority of people can have slightly more scope to indulge in their identity disorders?

Maybe we could tax churches to pay for it, and more. A lot more.

Or maybe we could exclusively tax you and your fellow neo-Marxists to pay for it, seeing as you're the ones who are are so keen on the idea.

Marxist? huh?

I just figure that since the argument against providing for trans people is that it's a silly nonsensical thing that if we do it that we take from other silly nonsensical people who currently receive massive tax advantages over the rest of us.

Identity disorders, neo-Marxism, and pedophilia all in one page.