Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

GN Toilets

Options
1…34689…17

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yeah, that’s reported incidents and allegations made, whereas I was talking about if you wanted an accurate representation of the real figures, you would also have to have the figures for the number of unreported incidents which occurred in either single sex facilities or unisex facilities in order to make a realistic comparison.

    Those figures aren’t mentioned in the article, but I wasn’t going to be a smartarse about it and point out that the article isn’t a study, it’s presenting a curated representation of the data from a study it doesn’t even give a link to. It would be like me linking to an article which suggests that a greater number of people who are transgender make complaints of being sexually and physically assaulted in single sex bathrooms, like this -


    Debunking Bathroom Myths

    No Jack, it was a freedom of information request for simple crime stats. No analysis.

    And your argument is illogical. A huge amount of rape is unreported but nobody in their right minds would suggest not responding to that which is.

    Anyways to be honest I cant take your arguments on this matter seriously since you claimed to know people who need to be accompanied to toilets like royalty. Actually "know", and plural ie more than one! I have never met such a person, they seem an unlikely caricature. Unless you live in some weird religious or medieval compound that could not be true.


  • Options
    #153
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    A building I work in occasionally has both types of toilets. Can't see the need for any fuss any more than I can see a need to give them a shiny new label. Many small establishments just have a toilet. As long as a toilet is clean who really cares?


  • Options
    #154
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yeah, that’s reported incidents and allegations made, whereas I was talking about if you wanted an accurate representation of the real figures, you would also have to have the figures for the number of unreported incidents which occurred in either single sex facilities or unisex facilities in order to make a realistic comparison.


    Why? What's wrong with using reported statistics?

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Those figures aren’t mentioned in the article, but I wasn’t going to be a smartarse about it and point out that the article isn’t a study, it’s presenting a curated representation of the data from a study it doesn’t even give a link to. It would be like me linking to an article which suggests that a greater number of people who are transgender make complaints of being sexually and physically assaulted in single sex bathrooms, like this -


    Debunking Bathroom Myths

    Huffpost, Brynn Tannehill "Contributor Board member of the Trans United Fund", links to Articles by Carlos Maza. Am I right in that you purposely linked to obvious bias sources? That was the point yes?


  • Options
    #155
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,815 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    One eyed Jack wrote: »

    Opposition to the idea of introducing adaptations to a system which would mean no greater inconvenience to the vast majority of people seem to be borne more out of spite, than any genuine concern for people’s welfare.

    Exactly. Thats what it really boils down to.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #156
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,679 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    is_that_so wrote: »
    A building I work in occasionally has both types of toilets. Can't see the need for any fuss any more than I can see a need to give them a shiny new label. Many small establishments just have a toilet. As long as a toilet is clean who really cares?

    "A toilet" where one person uses it at a time (like at home or the small businesses you mention) is a very different proposition to shared rooms where both men and women can be present simultaneously.

    99% of the time it's going to be fine (although there is the discomfort/embarrassment factor some will feel too of course), but you will get chancers/pervs or outright dangerous individuals taking advantage of the situation - and for what? Identity politics kudos?

    If you're a man go to the gents. If you're a woman go to the ladies. I'm sure trans people have managed quite fine without the need for special "inclusive" bathrooms - if anything I'd think it's a bit insulting and condescending to the majority who just get on with it without a fuss.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,815 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Why? What's wrong with using reported statistics?
    [/B]



    Huffpost, Brynn Tannehill "Contributor Board member of the Trans United Fund", links to Articles by Carlos Maza. Am I right in that you purposely linked to obvious bias sources? That was the point yes?

    Thats a bit weird. On the one hand you have a go at Cis men on this issue, on the other a trans person with reasonable arguments is just written off as as biased.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #158
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,679 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Thats a bit weird. On the one hand you have a go at Cis men on this issue, on the other a trans person with reasonable arguments is just written off as as biased.

    FYP.. I was born male and live as a man. No need for even more unnecessary "labels" than we already have.


  • Options
    #159
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Thats a bit weird. On the one hand you have a go at Cis men on this issue, on the other a trans person with reasonable arguments is just written off as as biased.

    Carlos Maza isn't trans as far as I'm aware. As usual you want to frame someone's point as being based in transphobia.


  • Options
    #160
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,671 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Gynoid wrote: »
    No Jack, it was a freedom of information request for simple crime stats. No analysis.

    And your argument is illogical. A huge amount of rape is unreported but nobody in their right minds would suggest not responding to that which is.


    There’s nothing illogical in arguing that if the idea is to prevent people from being assaulted, then those prevention methods would surely take people who are transgender into consideration too? Attempting to prevent people who are transgender from using the bathrooms they wish to use for their intended purpose isn’t going to prevent anyone from being physically or sexually assaulted.

    Gynoid wrote: »
    Anyways to be honest I cant take your arguments on this matter seriously since you claimed to know people who need to be accompanied to toilets like royalty. Actually "know", and plural ie more than one! I have never met such a person, they seem an unlikely caricature. Unless you live in some weird religious or medieval compound that could not be true.


    I’ve never met the unlikely carricature of bogeymen in dresses hanging around women’s bathrooms either, which is why I’m unable to take those kind of arguments seriously. It was suggested that the reason women go in groups to single sex bathrooms was for their personal safety, and unless I lived in medieval times where royalty were chaperoned (or a country like Saudi Arabia), I’d say their behaviour was fuelled by irrational fears of something happening to them which is incredibly unlikely to happen in reality.


  • Options
    #161
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    CIS. Surely a candidate for one if the most authoritarian enforcements of a purportedly descriptive word ever invented. It has been utterly forced into the language by obnoxious tyrants. Fcuk cis, and cishet, and heteronormative, and all those ither sh1tty made up terms from septic gender theory.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,679 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Gynoid wrote: »
    CIS. Surely a candidate for one if the most authoritarian enforcements of a purportedly descriptive word ever invented. It has been utterly forced into the language by obnoxious tyrants. Fcuk cis, and cishet, and heteronormative, and all those ither sh1tty made up terms from septic gender theory.

    I look at it pretty simply - theory/identity politics < reality/biology

    That's not to say that individuals cannot and don't feel like they were born the wrong sex, nor is it saying that they should not (once old enough to fully understand the consequences) be able to take whatever steps they wish to be happier, and be free from persecution regardless.

    BUT...

    I fundamentally disagree with this notion that everyone else must fully embrace, celebrate and advocate for these choices. Just as people are free to adopt whatever identity they wish, so too are others free to reject it based on THEIR beliefs and values. So long as both are respectful regardless, there is no issue. Live and let live and all that.

    But that's not enough - because as I said above, modern identity politics has a "you're with us or against us" mantra - hugely ironic for a group that claim to be tolerant, open-minded and accepting.


  • Options
    #163
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,815 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Gynoid wrote: »
    CIS. Surely a candidate for one if the most authoritarian enforcements of a purportedly descriptive word ever invented. It has been utterly forced into the language by obnoxious tyrants. Fcuk cis, and cishet, and heteronormative, and all those ither sh1tty made up terms from septic gender theory.

    Exactly. We can clearly see the arguments presented here really are nothing to do with cis womens welfare or safety at all.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #164
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    Gynoid wrote: »
    CIS. Surely a candidate for one if the most authoritarian enforcements of a purportedly descriptive word ever invented. It has been utterly forced into the language by obnoxious tyrants. Fcuk cis, and cishet, and heteronormative, and all those ither sh1tty made up terms from septic gender theory.

    I never knew anyone felt so strongly about terms like cisalpine and cisatlantic.


  • Options
    #165
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Exactly. We can clearly see the arguments presented here really are nothing to do with cis womens welfare or safety at all.

    Apart from the ones that are ofcourse. You've just chosen to ignore them and label and insinuate that people are transphobic.


  • Options
    #166
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    I never knew anyone felt so strongly about terms like cisalpine.
    Steady now. It's that somewhat asinine neologism that emerged from gender theory that's causing people to twitch.


  • Options
    #167
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,036 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »
    This is new to me, the old gender neutral toilets.

    Is it fine if I use these (I'm a straight bloke)?

    Do they have urinals?

    I've been in unisex toilets before.

    Bit late to the party, I know; but: are you seriously telling me you have a hangup about peeing into a porcelain bowl...?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #168
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Steady now. It's that somewhat asinine neologism that emerged from gender theory that's causing people to twitch.

    Not forgetiing the double standards that exist on Boards. If I intentionally label a trans person as their biological sex to illicit a reaction I'll get an infraction/ban. If Joey labels people cis purposely and to illicit a reaction, it's deemed perfectly acceptable.


  • Options
    #169
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Steady now. It's that somewhat asinine neologism that emerged from gender theory that's causing people to twitch.

    Do these same people have an issue with the term heterosexual, which was coined after homosexual in the late 19th century?


  • Options
    #170
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Not forgetiing the double standards that exist on Boards. If I intentionally label a trans person as their biological sex to illicit a reaction I'll get an infraction/ban. If Joey does labels people cis purposely and to illicit a reaction, it's deemed perfectly acceptable.

    There is nothing insulting about the term cisgender.


  • Options
    #171
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    There is nothing insulting about the term cisgender.

    It is insulting to some. It's an issue that has come up on boards before. There was a thread on feedback about it too. Regardless, we're off topic.

    Personally I view it the same way I view words like snowflake and libtard, silly, pathetic Americanisms that add no value to the language we speak.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    Do these same people have an issue with the term heterosexual, which was coined after homosexual in the late 19th century?

    I have no idea, you should ask them. As terms though there is a clear etymology that people can appreciate.


  • Options
    #173
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    It is insulting to some. It's an issue that has come up on boards before. There was a thread on feedback about it too. Regardless, we're off topic.

    Transphobes just pretend to be insulted by it. It’s about as insulting as being called a heterosexual.


  • Options
    #174
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    Transphobes just pretend to be insulted by it. It’s about as insulting as being called a heterosexual.

    Oh here we go. Another poster here to label people as transphobes:rolleyes:

    People who find it offensive have given there reasons before, and they were not based in transphobia.


  • Options
    #175
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    is_that_so wrote: »
    I have no idea, you should ask them. As terms though there is a clear etymology that people can appreciate.

    A moment ago you said is was “asinine”, but now these people who have a problem with the term are people other than you? So cisgender is fine in your view?


  • Options
    #176
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Oh here we go. Another poster here to label people as transphobes:rolleyes:

    People who find it offensive have given there reasons before, and they were not based in transphobia.

    Ok, why is it offensive?


  • Options
    #177
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    Ok, why is it offensive?

    Go find their posts. I'm not going to speak on their behalf.

    As that other poster said it is asinine. It adds no value and has no descriptive power that didn't already exist. A word invented by pseudo-intellectuals in the Halls on Berkeley and Harvard that is used by virtually nobody outside of Academia, the media and discussions such as these.


  • Options
    #178
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    A moment ago you said is was “asinine”, but now these people who have a problem with the term are people other than you? So cisgender is fine in your view?
    Eh, they are completely different words. Read your own posts! Cis on its own to me is asinine and I think cisgender is a fairly dumb word, but many neologisms tend to be.


  • Options
    #179
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    Simple solution, make disabled toilets gender neutral - problem solved.

    It's economical & caters for everyone.

    The vast majority of both men and women I know have zero interest in sharing a toilet with anyone let alone people of the opposite sex.

    Personally I prefer doing my business without an audience, let alone worrying that the girl in the cubicle beside me can hear my bodily functions.

    For me it's very easily decided, you cater for the needs of the many, not pamper to the demands of a few.


  • Options
    #180
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Go find their posts. I'm not going to speak on their behalf.

    As that other poster said it is asinine. It adds no value and has no descriptive power that didn't already exist. A word invented by pseudo-intellectuals in the Halls on Berkeley and Harvard that is used by virtually nobody outside of Academia, the media and discussions such as these.

    So your argument is that there are perfectly valid, absolutely not transphobic reasons to be offended by the term cisgender, but you won’t say what they are, but they were posted in some other thread somewhere by unnamed posters and I should just look them up?

    It’s a useful term in discussions about transgenderism, because otherwise we’d be distinguishing between women and transwomen all the time, which is not inclusive language.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Eh, they are completely different words. Read your own posts! Cis on its own to me is asinine and I think cisgender is a fairly dumb word, but many neologisms tend to be.

    Why is it dumb?


Advertisement