GN Toilets

NIMAN · 26-10-2019 4:23pm

They have had GN toilets for a long time now.... you might know them as unisex.

NSAman · 26-10-2019 4:28pm

NIMAN wrote: »

They have had GN toilets for a long time now.... you might know them as unisex.

Very common, known as the bathroom in the states, most even have wheelchair bars. In our house we call it the loo!

Annasopra · 26-10-2019 6:29pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

If the bathrooms are being used by both sexes it's likely that are man i.e. a biological male does what the poster says. Not a trans person.

What does that mean?

p1akuw47h5r3it · 26-10-2019 6:42pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What does that mean?

It's most likely that a man will be the one whipping out his penis, not a trans person due to the huge minority that they are. Yet you decided to infer the latter.

Op should've said "are a".

manbitesdog · 26-10-2019 7:41pm

Princess Calla wrote: »

However there's been many nights out were I've escaped to the toilet to get away from someone who didn't take the hint I wasn't interested. If they were able to follow me into a toilet I wouldn't feel safe or comfortable. This to me is the danger of unisex toilets especially where alcohol is a factor.

You make a good point here; it also occurs to me that a transwoman is likely to feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe if barred from the Ladies toilet in a situation where alcohol is involved.

manbitesdog · 26-10-2019 7:43pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Most of us choose the people we share our homes with.

And we lock the door when we're in the loo.

How is that different from a public toilet? Have you not been locking it in public ones?

Robert ninja · 26-10-2019 7:48pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

How is that different from a public toilet? Have you not been locking it in public ones?

1. It's family so level of comfort is different
2. As soon as anyone wants to start doing their business (in the odd situation that we both happen to be in the bathroom) then the other leaves.
3. A stall is different from a whole room.

pinkyeye · 26-10-2019 7:53pm

This subject is constantly coming up on Boards, why are people so obsessed???

We have two staff/visitor toilets in work, one upstairs and one downstairs and both are "unisex" or "gender neutral".

Doesn't make one slight bit of difference to my life except there's usually someone in the downstairs one so I've to run upstairs. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Princess Calla · 26-10-2019 8:05pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

You make a good point here; it also occurs to me that a transwoman is likely to feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe if barred from the Ladies toilet in a situation where alcohol is involved.

But a transwoman has a much better chance of defending herself against a man than a biological woman.

While I appreciate steps need to be taken to protect more vulnerable people it shouldn't be at the expense of other vulnerable people.

Now I'll admit I don't know any of the trans community, however I'd imagine the majority are the same as the rest of us, just wanting to get through life a day at a time.

If they are being respectful minding their own business, I doubt if anyone would notice them slipping into the ladies and using a cubicle. Especially in an adult environment.

Dante7 · 26-10-2019 8:42pm

road_high wrote: »

As we do in public toilets. I think mixed toilets might even reduce anti social behavior

Except that 85% of attacks on women that occured in changing rooms or toilets, happened in mixed sex facilities. Biological females require a separate space. Once that requirement is met, they can divvy up the other spaces as they see fit.

One eyed Jack · 26-10-2019 9:01pm

Dante7 wrote: »

Except that 85% of attacks on women that occured in changing rooms or toilets, happened in mixed sex facilities. Biological females require a separate space. Once that requirement is met, they can divvy up the other spaces as they see fit.

To be honest it sounds like there should be separate facilities for sexual predators.

I’ve often used the women’s facilities and there’s never been an issue.

Princess Calla · 26-10-2019 9:08pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be honest it sounds like there should be separate facilities for sexual predators.

I’ve often used the women’s facilities and there’s never been an issue.

Yes because a sexual predator is going to identify themselves as such and use their designated area.

GRACKEA · 26-10-2019 9:12pm

Dante7 wrote: »

Except that 85% of attacks on women that occured in changing rooms or toilets, happened in mixed sex facilities. Biological females require a separate space. Once that requirement is met, they can divvy up the other spaces as they see fit.

Women are statistically more likely to be attacked in any manner as in assaulted/raped/abused/murdered by biological males, known to them, in their own home. Should we enforce segregated facilities in all private homes too?

One eyed Jack · 26-10-2019 9:19pm

Princess Calla wrote: »

Yes because a sexual predator is going to identify themselves as such and use their designated area.

Well that’s kinda the point - sexual predators don’t advertise themselves, whether toilets are single sex or unisex doesn’t make any difference to an opportunistic sexual predator - if someone is of that frame of mind, they’ll find a way to satisfy themselves regardless of whether toilets are unisex or single sex.

splinter65 · 26-10-2019 9:24pm

GRACKEA wrote: »

Did you ever live in a house (family or house share) and share use of a bathroom with people of mixed genders? It's just like that.

I’m glad that youre happy to allow random strangers to open your front door and come in and use your bathroom but a lot of people would be a bit nervous.

26-10-2019 9:25pm

Another great Saturday night on Boards.ie. I'm off to the pub in a spirit of kindness towards fellow people.

Imagine worrying about who's in the jacks when there's a creamy pint settling there on the bar for you.

Unless you like beating vulnerable people in bathrooms.

Princess Calla · 26-10-2019 9:32pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that’s kinda the point - sexual predators don’t advertise themselves, whether toilets are single sex or unisex doesn’t make any difference to an opportunistic sexual predator - if someone is of that frame of mind, they’ll find a way to satisfy themselves regardless of whether toilets are unisex or single sex.

Valid point, but then what's the thinking behind a unisex toilet?

I thought it was because a transperson didn't feel safe using a toilet that represents their outward biology, so on the same logic if their attacker is of that frame of mind they'll attack them anyway irrespective of what toilet they use.

That makes having a unisex toilet a mute point really.

thecornflake · 26-10-2019 9:44pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In my experience anyway, nobody gives a shìte, just go in, do whatever you need to do, and get out. There’s no need to overthink the whole thing.

Is giving a ****e not one of the main things?

One eyed Jack · 26-10-2019 9:55pm

Princess Calla wrote: »

Valid point, but then what's the thinking behind a unisex toilet?

I thought it was because a transperson didn't feel safe using a toilet that represents their outward biology, so on the same logic if their attacker is of that frame of mind they'll attack them anyway irrespective of what toilet they use.

That makes having a unisex toilet a mute point really.

It really does, and you’re right, the idea of making toilets unisex where they weren’t before is based upon a misguided sense of trying to accommodate a minority of people whom it’s assumed all feel the same way. The reality is of course that people who are transgender were using public facilities before this ever became a thing, whether they were segregated by sex or whether they were unisex.

I just find the argument that unisex facilities increase the risks of attacks on women and children by men are generally based upon perpetuating paranoia and fear in ordinary people who for the most part are only interested in using the facilities for what they’re meant for. If someone isn’t doing so, then it’s that person should be punished to the fullest extent of the law as opposed to casting aspersions on innocent members of the general public.

Gynoid · 26-10-2019 9:56pm

GRACKEA wrote: »

Women are statistically more likely to be attacked in any manner as in assaulted/raped/abused/murdered by biological males, known to them, in their own home. Should we enforce segregated facilities in all private homes too?

And because most accidents happen to people at home there is no need to enforce standards of care in public spaces.

Honestly all you people flapping away any concern must not have actually read the reports where girls are refusing to use them in schools and getting urinary infections or missing school. And the FACTS that the vast majority of girls who get assaulted are assaulted in unisex changing ròoms - 90% according to a 2017-2018 study. Yeah keep on flapping away, those girls are just collateral damage. Just like the girls losing sports scholarships. Just like the kids being socially transitioned by neurotic parents. Collateral damage in a shiny happy world of ideological woo.

One eyed Jack · 26-10-2019 9:56pm

thecornflake wrote: »

Is giving a ****e not one of the main things?

That’s number two

Dante7 · 26-10-2019 10:04pm

GRACKEA wrote: »

Women are statistically more likely to be attacked in any manner as in assaulted/raped/abused/murdered by biological males, known to them, in their own home. Should we enforce segregated facilities in all private homes too?

This is such a stupid argument. It is similar to the argument that American Second Amendment advocates posit. "Sure, they'll be attacked anyway".
But why implement policies that will increase the possibility of more attacks? Introducing mixed sex toilets and changing rooms will result in increased attacks on females by predatory males. I am very wary of males who are advocating this policy.

26-10-2019 10:05pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s number two

That's real statesmanship there now. Judiciary next for you? Royal Irish Academy perhaps?

How embarrassing.

GRACKEA · 26-10-2019 10:11pm

Dante7 wrote: »

This is such a stupid argument. It is similar to the argument that American Second Amendment advocates posit. "Sure, they'll be attacked anyway".
But why implement policies that will increase the possibility of more attacks? Introducing mixed sex toilets and changing rooms will result in increased attacks on females by predatory males. I am very wary of males who are advocating this policy.

Well I'm a young woman so probably someone you're trying to protect. As I've said already in this thread, everyone should have somewhere they feel safe going to the toilet. I think segregated facilities should continue to exist, and separate gender neutral/unisex ones should also exist. Everyone's needs are catered for that way. I just think a lot of the so called campaigners for women's safety seem to be more focused on hindering trans/intersex people than anything else.

One eyed Jack · 26-10-2019 10:16pm

Dante7 wrote: »

But why implement policies that will increase the possibility of more attacks? Introducing mixed sex toilets and changing rooms will result in increased attacks on females by predatory males. I am very wary of males who are advocating this policy.

The intent isn’t to increase the risk to anyone’s safety, it’s the opposite is my understanding of the idea.

If you’re wary of males advocating this policy, perhaps you should stand in the toilets all day yourself just so you can be absolutely certain that everyone is behaving appropriately and everyone is safe while they’re using the facilities. That’s the only way you can be absolutely certain.

I wouldn’t envy the task myself :pac:

the_pen_turner · 26-10-2019 10:25pm

im 50 50 on the whole thing. iv no problem with unisex in principle , alhough i would rather non gendered indevidual toilets that everyone uses so they are like a row of disabled toilets one after another

ny problems with this are more logistical rather than about being attcked. i would rather keep them seperated so that the mens toilets dont end up a mess like the womens do, or have all the women clogging up the facilities doig what ever they do in there for ages with several of their friends.

i dont understand the being attacked angle. surely an attacker can now identafy are what ever gender allows them acess to the victim. years ago a man in the ladies would cause alarm and he would be delt with acordingly. now all he has to do is identafy as a trans person and nobody can do anything.

Mrs OBumble · 26-10-2019 10:31pm

GRACKEA wrote: »

. I just think a lot of the so called campaigners for women's safety seem to be more focused on hindering trans/intersex people than anything else.

Trans/intersex people have always been free to use the non gender specific accessible facilities. But they seem to want access to the facilities for biological women. Can you see why we might be suspicious of their motives?

GRACKEA · 26-10-2019 10:31pm

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im 50 50 on the whole thing. iv no problem with unisex in principle , alhough i would rather non gendered indevidual toilets that everyone uses so they are like a row of disabled toilets one after another

ny problems with this are more logistical rather than about being attcked. i would rather keep them seperated so that the mens toilets dont end up a mess like the womens do, or have all the women clogging up the facilities doig what ever they do in there for ages with several of their friends.

i dont understand the being attacked angle. surely an attacker can now identafy are what ever gender allows them acess to the victim. years ago a man in the ladies would cause alarm and he would be delt with acordingly. now all he has to do is identafy as a trans person and nobody can do anything.

Anyone doing anything intimidating or inappropriate to anybody else can be reported to staff, security and gardai.

the_pen_turner · 26-10-2019 10:34pm

GRACKEA wrote: »

Anyone doing anything intimidating or inappropriate to anybody else can be reported to staff, security and gardai.

yes obviously but that only afterwards. surely you dont want anything happening at all

my point is that it is very easy for anyone to use either toilets now anyway so whats the problem with unisex

GRACKEA · 26-10-2019 10:34pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Trans/intersex people have always been free to use the non gender specific accessible facilities. But they seem to want access to the facilities for biological women. Can you see why we might be suspicious of their motives?

This discussion is about specific gender neutral facilities, not opening female spaces up to everybody. And I've said repeatedly in this exact thread, an ideal situation would have gender specific facilities AND unisex ones.

pinkyeye · 26-10-2019 10:53pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Trans/intersex people have always been free to use the non gender specific accessible facilities. But they seem to want access to the facilities for biological women. Can you see why we might be suspicious of their motives?

What are you on about? This thread is about gender neutral toilets, not everyone getting access to womens toilets??

Quackster · 26-10-2019 11:19pm

GRACKEA wrote: »

This discussion is about specific gender neutral facilities, not opening female spaces up to everybody. And I've said repeatedly in this exact thread, an ideal situation would have gender specific facilities AND unisex ones.

And the most sensible way to do that would be to use the existing separate disabled toilets for this purpose as they are generally standalone cubicles. Provide extra if necessary to meet potential increased demand.

thecornflake · 26-10-2019 11:20pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's real statesmanship there now. Judiciary next for you? Royal Irish Academy perhaps?

How embarrassing.

Who ordered the buzz kill with the dry side of serious?

Mrs OBumble · 26-10-2019 11:42pm

Quackster wrote: »

And the most sensible way to do that would be to use the existing separate disabled toilets for this purpose as they are generally standalone cubicles. Provide extra if necessary to meet potential increased demand.

So long as those extra aren't taken from the stock of women-only facilities, and so long as male-to-female trans people stay out of the latter, we'll all be happy.

Dante7 · 26-10-2019 11:47pm

GRACKEA wrote: »

Well I'm a young woman so probably someone you're trying to protect. As I've said already in this thread, everyone should have somewhere they feel safe going to the toilet. I think segregated facilities should continue to exist, and separate gender neutral/unisex ones should also exist. Everyone's needs are catered for that way. I just think a lot of the so called campaigners for women's safety seem to be more focused on hindering trans/intersex people than anything else.

As long as we can agree that females should have separate spaces, I'm good.

But just for the the record, the Intersex people I know don't take kindly to being dragged into this debate and being used as pawns. (It was Intersex awareness day today, btw). This debate does not involve them.

Atlantic Dawn · 26-10-2019 11:55pm

This topic needs a referendum.

theguzman · 27-10-2019 12:12am

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

This topic needs a referendum.

Can't have that because common sense would prevail and its not something that those screaming the loudest can tolerate is common sense.

One eyed Jack · 27-10-2019 12:29am

theguzman wrote: »

Can't have that because common sense would prevail and its not something that those screaming the loudest can tolerate is common sense.

I think AD was joking.

There’s no need for a referendum because nobody is calling for an amendment to the Constitution, unless you mean an amendment should be made to introduce legislation prohibiting people from using public toilets or restrict them from using public toilets they wish to use?

The onus is surely on you and people who agree with you to speak up, if you imagine you have as much support from the general public as you think you do. That’s why the idea of unisex bathrooms gained popularity - people spoke up for themselves, and it made sense to enough people who supported the idea. The people who didn’t support the idea never really spoke up, and appeared to be waiting for someone else to speak up on their behalf.

splinter65 · 27-10-2019 12:31am

theguzman wrote: »

Can't have that because common sense would prevail and its not something that those screaming the loudest can tolerate is common sense.

Are you trying to suggest that this young lady should use the men’s room?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article236647643.html

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 27-10-2019 12:36am

splinter65 wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that this young lady should use the men’s room?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article236647643.html

You’re right. Let’s have 100 toilets in every pub... I mean that the most sensible option.

27-10-2019 1:04am

splinter65 wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that this young lady should use the men’s room?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article236647643.html

It’s hard to take people seriously when that bearded man wants to use female pronouns and press/media outlets go along with the ridiculous charade.

As for gender neutral toilets? The mens jacks in the point depot back in the mid-90’s, during an Oasis gig, was totally gender neutral. The ladies was full of girls and women, the mens had men using the urinals, both genders using the cubicles and a row of sinks being used as squat pit latrines by the women.

Dirty, manky, disgusting behaviour. I worked in a nightclub as a barman and the the ladies was always in a heap, just horrific by the end of the night. The gents had piss on the floor and the toilets needed a brush and bleach, but that was about as bad as it got. The ladies was the most disgusting of sights. Shudder.

So no, leave the mens jacks alone. Some eejits won’t even let us have a piss at a urinal in peace any more. Give it a rest you shower of weirdos.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-10-2019 1:39am

Fann Linn wrote: »

From years working in pubs and the service industry from my experience women's toilets were always the worst.

I’ve heard this a bit but I’ve had the opposite experience. In restaurants and pubs I worked in, the gents were always messier.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-10-2019 1:46am

biko wrote: »

We need toilets exclusively for girls anyway

Girls skipping school because they are 'so afraid of gender neutral toilets'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/girls-skipping-school-because-so-20527035

Yeah, I read that some schools have assigned toilets gender-neutral without doing the necessary upgrade work so that the cubicles are open at the top and bottom instead of separate little rooms like they should be. I read that some girls are holding in their wee all day in those schools. Maybe some people won’t believe that because it’s a tabloid doing the reporting but I do because I would have been that girl. If there were shared loos with open cubicles, little OBD would gave been waiting to get home to use the toilet!

27-10-2019 2:03am

Gynoid wrote: »

Stop eating into womens spaces to appear politically correct.

I find it fascinating that you consider it 'eating into women's spaces' while the exact same thing could be said about male spaces. Why is the provision of something that can be used by both sexes seen as a loss for women and not for men?

splinter65 · 27-10-2019 8:06am

Hunky Monster wrote: »

You’re right. Let’s have 100 toilets in every pub... I mean that the most sensible option.

Dyou know what’s a better option?
If people stop pretending that they agree that that guy is a girl. A man is not a woman.

Gynoid · 27-10-2019 8:13am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it fascinating that you consider it 'eating into women's spaces' while the exact same thing could be said about male spaces. Why is the provision of something that can be used by both sexes seen as a loss for women and not for men?

Because as anyone who is truthful knows it is essentially womens toilets (and other single sex spaces, toilets are just a thin edge of the wedge for prisons , refuges, wards, shower facilities, sports, etc) which are being made available to anyone who identifies as a woman.

A gender neutral toilet is not going to bother anyone of itself, it is the accompanying erasure of female only sex protected spaces that is the problem.

The idea of a third space, the gender neutral space, the third space in sports etc, is completely unacceptable to gender ideologues. They want the world to accept gender self id means people factually become the biologocal sex with which they identify. Nothing less will do. They demand people subvert their reason and instincts.

Toilets in the public space are but a trope for such ideologues. They are an easy area to make people feel dismissive of dissent. Thereafter it is an extension of the line of deconstructionist thought to claim that women who will not accept trans identifying men - however whimsically or deviously some may thus identify - as actual equivalent de facto females in ALL of their private single sex spaces are truscum, terfs, deserving of vile abuse and threat, even a public gloating over their death as many trans allies did after the recent death of lesbian activist Magdalen Berns. Fcuk it, these ideologues go so far as to claim that a lesbian who does not want girl dick in her pussy is a vile bigot. Fcuk them, I say.

Annasopra · 27-10-2019 8:57am

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Trans/intersex people have always been free to use the non gender specific accessible facilities. But they seem to want access to the facilities for biological women. Can you see why we might be suspicious of their motives?

No.

Annasopra · 27-10-2019 9:00am

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So long as those extra aren't taken from the stock of women-only facilities, and so long as male-to-female trans people stay out of the latter, we'll all be happy.

Nah. Just don't claim everyone supports your transphobic exclusion.

splinter65 · 27-10-2019 9:31am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah. Just don't claim everyone supports your transphobic exclusion.

Why is my right as a biological female to be performing bodily functions in a biologically female only bathroom less to you then a transgender persons right to choose the biologically female only bathroom over the gender neutral bathroom?

FTA69 · 27-10-2019 9:53am

Gynoid wrote: »

Lily Madigan is the name I forgot. Seriously dyspeptic individual

I know her. Utterly narcissistic and disgraceful individual.

GN Toilets

Comments