UCD to re-designate more than 170 toilets as gender neutral (Mod warning in op)

freshpopcorn

Grayson wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have rooms where a man may be alone with a woman because it's dangerous? Are you Mike Pence?

Ans no-one is suggesting that men and women should share a cubicle.

This issue I've heard is mainly a woman doesn't want to be applying her make up at the mirror to be surrounded by a large group of men.

ohnonotgmail

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This issue I've heard is mainly a woman doesn't want to be applying her make up at the mirror to be surrounded by a large group of men.

Any time i'm in a public toilet i want to be in and out as fast as possible. Do they envisage large groups of men standing aroung?

freshpopcorn

Grayson wrote: »

Nope. have you got a linky?

It wasn't a great debate to be honest.
They did an opinion poll 58% against 31% for and 11% undecided.
https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10844493/

freshpopcorn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Any time i'm in a public toilet i want to be in and out as fast as possible. Do they envisage large groups of men standing aroung?

Most men I know go to the toilet do their business, wash their hands and leave.
Woman have a tendency to spend longer either in the cubical or at the sink.
So there is more hanging around. Either waiting to use a toilet because they won't be urinals or waiting to use the sink.

ohnonotgmail

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Most men I know go to the toilet do their business, wash their hands and leave.
Woman have a tendency to spend longer either in the cubical or at the sink.
So there is more hanging around. Either waiting to use a toilet because they won't be urinals or waiting to use the sink.

If the guys are going to be in and out i dont see the issues for the women using the toilet. And i dont see why unisex bathrooms cant have urinals. they just need to put them in a screened off area.

freshpopcorn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If the guys are going to be in and out i dont see the issues for the women using the toilet. And i dont see why unisex bathrooms cant have urinals. they just need to put them in a screened off area.

The reason why guys would be hanging around is women spend longer in cubicals or at sinks/mirrors based on my experience just look at the queues going into the ladies and men's. There often is a que for the ladies compared to the men. As a man your whole process would be slowed down.

The Legend Of Kira

Claire Byrne show did a poll on this last night & it turns out a silent majority of the audience are not in favour of so called gender neutral bathrooms/toilets.

ceadaoin.

Grayson wrote: »

That's a strawman argument. Public toilets have only been around for about a hundred years and were built during the victorian/edwardian periods and later. they're a reflection of a time period that is the most prudish in our history.

Simply saying that something was done in a particular way at a particular time is not an argument as to why it's a tautology.

Oh here we go. Prude. The worst thing you can be nowadays

Ignore the fact that plenty , if not most, women have at some point felt harrassed or threatened by a male and that many simply would not feel comfortable sharing intimate spaces with strangers of the opposite sex. It's not just public toilets, it's changing rooms, locker rooms, hospitals, domestic abuse shelters, or it will be at some point in the future.

Why was the fact that the university of Toronto had to reduce unisex facilities because of women being filmed ignored? Target had an increase in these incidents also after their changing rooms went unisex. Also ignored. Yet someone talking about a sanitary bin was focussed on. Yes we now that perverts will commit crimes anyway. But why make it easier for people who otherwise would not have taken the risk?

Also I must be the biggest prude ever because I wouldn't want to use a tampon vending machine with some random guy standing there !

Women fought for their own facilities btw, at first it was male only, and in some countries are still fighting for access. Why is it that they want their own and not just access to the men's?

Bob24

Grayson wrote: »

Bob24 wrote: »

- pretty much all cultures around the world came up with the same concept of male and female toilets so there is no arguing that it is something g most human beings feel makes sense

That's a strawman argument. Public toilets have only been around for about a hundred years and were built during the victorian/edwardian periods and later. they're a reflection of a time period that is the most prudish in our history.

Simply saying that something was done in a particular way at a particular time is not an argument as to why it's a tautology.

Let’s be serious, not one culture was forced to adopt and retain the idea over such a long period. They did it because it suited their people - even though those cultures can be vastly different in many aspects.

Grayson

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Oh here we go. Prude. The worst thing you can be nowadays

I mentioned prudishness because public toilets have only been around since Victorian/Edwardian times and they had some very strange ideas about this stuff. Now rather than go on some weird rant about prudishness, why don't you actually show that separate public toilets were based on some sort of practicality rather than a prudishness.

Before that time people crapped in buckets or on the street. The idea of sharing a facility would have seemed like a stupid dilemma since there were no facilities.

So if you want to demonstrate that there is an anthropological reason why toilet facilities have to be separate, you'll have to do better than a rant about prudishness.

Mtx

Why do this? Trans people represent a tiny minority. Seems like a great way to waste money.

Grayson

Mtx wrote: »

Why do this? Trans people represent a tiny minority. Seems like a great way to waste money.

Surely combining facilities would save money in the long term. Especially when constructing new buildings. And in existing buildings it may result is less facilities being needed.
Also, why do people keep focussing on trans people. I just think of them as combined facilities that men or women can use.

koumi

I think most people here have used a unisex toilet or bathroom facility at some stage in their lives but wouldn't really regard it in that way. If you've ever stayed in a public hospital, you'll know that every ward contains a toilet which facilitates both men and women and disabled people, it's just a singular cubicle with toilet and shower which accommodates anyone physically able to use it. The all gender toilets in college campus are this, most were designated as disabled spaces originally but now function as a multi gender space.

In the same breath, if you happen to be in a hospital waiting room you will find gender specific toilets, which is probably sensible given the volumes of people who may be needing to use the facilities so I don't think abandoning separate spaces is what is being suggested. The singular units are additional to gender specific areas and I don't believe that anyone has proposed doing away with regular multi user gender designated spaces at all.

Billy86

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Claire Byrne show did a poll on this last night & it turns out a silent majority of the audience are not in favour of so called gender neutral bathrooms/toilets.

It's worth noting in a general sense, but I'm not sure that Claire Byrne's audience overlaps that much with the average UCD student. It would be interesting to run a poll on it past them.

jmayo

Dr Brown wrote: »

It's PC gone mad.


Mod-Ok folks, A few people have been banned, From here on anyone linking transgender to mental illness will get the same treatment. Discuss the topic. You can think an idea is a good idea or a bad idea without being a dick about it.

Sorry but isn't the whole argument about who has and hasn't a dick

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Oh here we go. Prude. The worst thing you can be nowadays

Ignore the fact that plenty , if not most, women have at some point felt harrassed or threatened by a male and that many simply would not feel comfortable sharing intimate spaces with strangers of the opposite sex. It's not just public toilets, it's changing rooms, locker rooms, hospitals, domestic abuse shelters, or it will be at some point in the future.

Why was the fact that the university of Toronto had to reduce unisex facilities because of women being filmed ignored? Target had an increase in these incidents also after their changing rooms went unisex. Also ignored. Yet someone talking about a sanitary bin was focussed on. Yes we now that perverts will commit crimes anyway. But why make it easier for people who otherwise would not have taken the risk?

Actually funny thing is AFAIK the poster you replied to no so long ago lived in Toronto, Canada anyway, so may be able to shed some light on that case and what effects it had opinions.

Red_Wake

Is there an inherent contradiction in banning posters for linking transgenderism to mental illness, while at the same time commending UCD for extending the use of toilets which were previously only for the disabled?

ceadaoin.

Grayson wrote: »

I mentioned prudishness because public toilets have only been around since Victorian/Edwardian times and they had some very strange ideas about this stuff. Now rather than go on some weird rant about prudishness, why don't you actually show that separate public toilets were based on some sort of practicality rather than a prudishness.

Before that time people crapped in buckets or on the street. The idea of sharing a facility would have seemed like a stupid dilemma since there were no facilities.

So if you want to demonstrate that there is an anthropological reason why toilet facilities have to be separate, you'll have to do better than a rant about prudishness.

Ok so just ignore the rest of my post which wasn't really a rant about prudishness at all.

ohnonotgmail

Red_Wake wrote: »

Is there an inherent contradiction in banning posters for linking transgenderism to mental illness, while at the same time commending UCD for extending the use of toilets which were previously only for the disabled?

No.

professore

So basically they are putting signage on the disabled bathrooms? Is that what's happening?

University authorities will shortly begin the process of re-designating single-stall toilets and changing rooms as gender neutral.

It's not 100% clear from the article. Meh I don't care. Do what you want.

DelaneyO

Feminists wanted equality. Now they have it. Suck it up.

Billy86

DelaneyO wrote: »

Feminists wanted equality. Now they have it. Suck it up.

I may have missed them but have not seeing many feminists complaining about this?

Bob24

koumi wrote: »

I think most people here have used a unisex toilet or bathroom facility at some stage in their lives but wouldn't really regard it in that way. If you've ever stayed in a public hospital, you'll know that every ward contains a toilet which facilitates both men and women and disabled people, it's just a singular cubicle with toilet and shower which accommodates anyone physically able to use it. The all gender toilets in college campus are this, most were designated as disabled spaces originally but now function as a multi gender space.

In the same breath, if you happen to be in a hospital waiting room you will find gender specific toilets, which is probably sensible given the volumes of people who may be needing to use the facilities so I don't think abandoning separate spaces is what is being suggested. The singular units are additional to gender specific areas and I don't believe that anyone has proposed doing away with regular multi user gender designated spaces at all.

Agreed to a good extend but with important additions and a disagreement.

Yes as I also mentioned in a previous post a few unisex single toilets per building would solve the issue.

But I will add that they should simply be labeled "WC" or "toilets" for 2 important reasons:
1) Make it clear that those who are not interested in solving a practical problem but rather in using public signage as a way to mark their ideological territory won't be entertained ("gender neutral toilets" or "all gender toilets" are just longer versions of "toilets" and "WC" which bring no more information and are simply intended at politicising signage - there is absolutely no practical reason to favour these phrases to the simpler and already existing words we have).
2) Be in a clear position not to entertain anyone who has a problem with those unisex toilets either. Unisex "WC" or "toilets" have always existed in this form and there is no good reason to suddenly be against them - end of discussion.

In short if there is an issue, fix it but leave politics out of it or don't act surprised when it becomes contraverstial (it will also avoid stupid situations like this one where unisex toilets already exist and disabled toilets next door are still relabelled as "all gender" for no practical reason).

And my disagreement is on disabled toilets. Sure in an hospital ward where there is little toilet traffic for the number of toilets, respectful enough users, regular cleaning and high hygiene standards, and due to the nature of the premises a good number of users might need special facilities (because statistically there will be a much higher proportion of disabled, but also sick, injured, or simply old people with mobility issues), then it makes sense.

But in a large building on a university campus where toilet traffic can be very high and with rush times (for exemple during short breaks between classes), and where lets be honest the average person doesn't take as good care of the facilities*, I think it is a rather bad decision to stop designating these toilets as disabled only (of course some people who don't have physical disabilities are sometimes using them already, but if they stop being specifically designated as such that number will increase a lot). This is because it is important to make sure they are available, clean, and in working order when a disabled person needs them. So if the university wants single unisex toilets in my view they need to create/designate a few new ones per building which are separate from disabled toilets.

* personal experience, I am not a student anymore but do visit UCD several times a week

currants

Red_Wake wrote: »

Is there an inherent contradiction in banning posters for linking transgenderism to mental illness, while at the same time commending UCD for extending the use of toilets which were previously only for the disabled?

Yes, erosion of services for people with disabilities to make way for the SJW cause. Disability is apparently not as appealing to a lot of folk as the trans agenda

Bob24

koumi wrote: »

I think most people here have used a unisex toilet or bathroom facility at some stage in their lives but wouldn't really regard it in that way. If you've ever stayed in a public hospital, you'll know that every ward contains a toilet which facilitates both men and women and disabled people, it's just a singular cubicle with toilet and shower which accommodates anyone physically able to use it.

And just one more note for reference: I don't think many people are actually confused about recognising these individual toilets as unisex, most discussions in the last few pages were around people arguing in favour or against unisex large and shared toilets with cubicles, which are a different story.

ceadaoin.

jmayo wrote: »

Sorry but isn't the whole argument about who has and hasn't a dick



Actually funny thing is AFAIK the poster you replied to no so long ago lived in Toronto, Canada anyway, so may be able to shed some light on that case and what effects it had opinions.

They just seem to be ignoring any reference to it or any other arguments about safety in favour of claiming that sex segregated toilets are a relic of a prudish past with no need for them in the modern age, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly there are large numbers of religious women and men who would be excluded from using unisex facilities due to their religious beliefs. I wonder what their position on that would be? I mean if separate facilities aren't needed in modern society they should just have to suck it up shouldn't they?

Will I Am Not

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They just seem to be ignoring any reference to it or any other arguments about safety in favour of claiming that sex segregated toilets are a relic of a prudish past with no need for them in the modern age, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly there are large numbers of religious women and men who would be excluded from using unisex facilities due to their religious beliefs. I wonder what their position on that would be? I mean if separate facilities aren't needed in modern society they should just have to suck it up shouldn't they?

Hopefully this doesn’t get ignored.

koumi

Bob24 wrote: »

And just one more note for reference: I don't think many people are actually confused about recognising these individual toilets as unisex, most discussions in the last few pages were around people arguing in favour or against unisex large and shared toilets with cubicles, which are a different story.

This is true but it has nothing to do with the actual topic of discussion. Granted, people decided to take it that way but it's a complete phantom issue and bears no relvence to the proposal by UCD. The reality is these facilities have been in operation in most every other college campus in Ireland since last year, with little fanfare or remark outside of this one particular university. I don't know why that is but I suppose people need something to shout at every now and again. So lets make an issue of it. (also, in reference to your previous post, as far as I am aware new facilities have been built to accomodate the increase in use so as not to "erode" disabled access, if anything there are now more spaces for disabled users as a result)

Bob24

koumi wrote: »

(also, in reference to your previous post, as far as I am aware new facilities have been built to accomodate the increase in use so as not to "erode" disabled access, if anything there are now more spaces for disabled users as a result)

If that is the case it is good but they should label them separately, which doesn't seem to be the case in UCD from what I can see (and they might have fixed it, but the picture I posted from DIT earlier is just ridiculous as they already had the appropriate facilities and still felt the need to rename the disabled toilets literally next door).

koumi

Bob24 wrote: »

If that is the case it is good but they should label them separately, which doesn't seem to be the case in UCD from what I can see (and they might have fixed it, but the picture I posted from DIT earlier is just ridiculous as they already had the appropriate facilities and still felt the need to rename the disabled toilets literally next door).

I'm not trans but I think even trans people might have an issue with being directed to use specifically designated "trans" facilities. I'm guessing labelling is merely symptomatic of a need to clearly signpost that space as user friendly.

Bob24

koumi wrote: »

I'm not trans but I think even trans people might have an issue with being directed to use specifically designated "trans" facilities. I'm guessing labelling is merely symptomatic of a need to clearly signpost that space as user friendly.

No of course, as per my previous post just call them "toilets" and it is clear they are for everyone with no stigma. What I was saying is that regular unisex toilets should be separate facilities and not overlap with relabelled disabled toilets which are there to cater for specific situations (i.e. if as you mentioned they are building new facilities it's what I think is the right way to go, but they should just label these toilets and keep disabled toilets as they are to make it clear they are reserved for a specific situation with physical disabilities and which will have the consequence of keeping them in better condition and more available).