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

mzungu

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?

In that case they would just go for the women/men only toilets. As I understand it, the it is only a minority that will be unisex, the rest (majority) will be the usual bog standard (pun not intended) single sex facilities.

koumi

Bob24 wrote: »

No of course, just label them "toilets" and they are for everyone. My point that regular unisex toilets should be separate facilities and not overlap with disabled toilets which are there to cater for specific situations (i.e. of they are building new facilities it's great but they should just label them toilets an keep disabled toilets as they are to make it clear they are).

I don't personally have a problem with it, disabled toilets are unisex spaces anyway, they've now just been upgraded to user friendly facilities. (and there are more of them)

freshpopcorn

I don't think the changing the disabled toilets into unisex toilets is a good Precedent to be setting for business/shops/etc.
These toilets are generally designed for people with mobility issue be it somebody is in a wheel chair, an older person,a young or elderly person person who may need assistance or somebody with a condition who might have a condition such as Chrohns disease.

ceadaoin.

mzungu wrote: »

In that case they would just go for the women/men only toilets. As I understand it, the it is only a minority that will be unisex, the rest (majority) will be the usual bog standard (pun not intended) single sex facilities.

Yes I know, i don't think anyone has a problem with that. the poster I was referring to seems to be arguing that there is no need in today's day and age, for single sex facilities at all, that it is a throwback to victorian times and everything should be unisex.

I was just wondering if they would tell a Muslim woman for example who didn't want to use a communal changing room to get over it that single sex facilites are a relic of the prudish past with no place in modern society. I highly doubt it

koumi

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I don't think the changing the disabled toilets into unisex toilets is a good Precedent to be setting for business/shops/etc.
These toilets are generally designed for people with mobility issue be it somebody is in a wheel chair, an older person,a young or elderly person person who may need assistance or somebody with a condition who might have a condition such as Chrohns disease.

I don't think the idea is to eradicate disabled spaces, but to create more multi-functional facilities. I hope they haven't removed all designated disabled toilets, they have reassigned "some" of them while in the process of creating even more multi-functional ones.

mzungu

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes I know, i don't think anyone has a problem with that. the poster I was referring to seems to be arguing that there is no need in today's day and age, for single sex facilities at all, that it is a throwback to victorian times and everything should be unisex.

Ah that's my bad, I misread it.

freshpopcorn

koumi wrote: »

I don't think the idea is to eradicate disabled spaces, but to create more multi-functional facilities. I hope they haven't removed all designated disabled toilets, they have reassigned "some" of them while in the process of creating even more multi-functional ones.

Just in my opinion these toilets have facilities that are need by some people or they may have conditions and I think they should be left as they are and not be taken up by perfectly well able bodied people.
If UCD wanted to build a block of unisex toilets. i'd have no issue with it.

koumi

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just in my opinion these toilets have facilities that are need by some people or they may have conditions and I think they should be left as they are and not be taken up by perfectly well able bodied people.
If UCD wanted to build a block of unisex toilets. i'd have no issue with it.

The irony in that is how this thread started out stating trans people were mentally ill. If they were designated special status, would they then be permitted to use the disabled facilities, given they would then have legal right to use them as such? I mean, technically they would be classified as having a disability right.

Annasopra

professore wrote: »

You said all toilets in UCD are open to all. I doubt if that's actually true.

No. I didnt.

Annasopra

Bob24 wrote: »

Picking a specific minor point in a post and personally going after the poster based on it doesn’t make valid argument against the whole post. Of course I could live with used tampons next to me when I do my thing it but it is also obvious a majority of men would rather avoid it if possible, this was just another point to add to previous ones and an exemple amongst others of how men and women toilets are different.

Doesn’t change the other major points either:
- urinals *are* impractical in unisex toilets (I guess we’ll just agree to disagree and people can judge based on their own experience, but again large public unisex toilets or unisex toilets with urinals are absolutely not the norm in continental Europe)
- 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

What?

Seriously? The vast majority of men have problems with sanitary bins? Wtaf is this?

Bob24

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What?

Seriously? The vast majority of men have problems with sanitary bins? Wtaf is this?

To be accurate, what is written in the post you quoted is that a majority of men would rather avoid having used tampons next to them when they do their thing in the toilets if possible, which is not quite the same as the way you rewrote it (and I still think it is a fair statement).

But again it was a very minor point in a larger argument/discussion, I don't get the value for the thread in digging this out in isolation from a few pages ago?

endacl

endacl wrote: »

I'd say there'll be a campaign to switch them back shortly after, once the reality of piddle splatters and seats being left up kicks in.

Student idealism.

Bless.

Perfect response. The mundane reality of equality is very often an anti-climax after the euphoric "victory".