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
Comments
-
Interesting. That is twice women are refered to en masse as a gossiping gaggle.
Well, my experience is that men usually stagger their toilet breaks while women go in pairs or more.
As for gender neutral toilets.. Usually meaning floor to ceiling cubicles and shared sink... Most men don't have a problem with using then. It's women who feel uncomfortable.
At work we have 2 self-contained toilets (with sink) , one with a man symbol, one with the woman in skirt and one leg symbol. But there are mainly women in the office. The manager put forward making the toilets gender-neutral and it was a resounding no. A couple of the women said they didn't mind but some of the older ones were completely against it.0 -
It’s a question that occurred to me because I don’t see private bathrooms in the home as comparable to public facilities, but I figured the idea of public facilities separated by sex had to have started somewhere. I looked up the history of the idea, and now I’m even more certain of the opinion that it was a terrible idea to begin with -
How did public bathrooms get to be separated by sex in the first place?0 -
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Are you not availing of the lockable cubicles??
No one sees me perform my bodily functions and I don't see anyone perform theirs. I do, sometimes, smell them but body function smells don't have a gender.
I am biologically female and I don't give a monkey's who is doing what in a different cubicle to the one I am occupying, I'm generally just hopeful I can access the sink to wash my hands without a make-up fixing gaggle of gossips blocking the way.
“make up fixing gaggle of gossips”. Other females using the ladies bathroom facilities as a ladies only man free space you mean? That seems to be a ridiculous concept to you.
These ladies appear beneath your contempt.
So much for the sisterhood.
You must find it equally ridiculous that a lot of other women think that someone with a penis and a scrotum should really use the unisex toilet that’s now being rolled everywhere.
Apparently that’s not good enough. Unless men dressed as women are acknowledged as women in every aspect of life and without hesitation by every other woman then there’s outrage.
It’s not going to happen.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Mrs OBumble wrote: »Why do you think that is?
A hint for ya ... its nothing to do with gossiping, and everything to do with the reason for women's opposition in this thread.
In my experience it’s because some individuals like the idea of being chaperoned like royalty while they use the facilities. Most people are perfectly capable of using the facilities without the need of a chaperone.0 -
Mrs OBumble wrote: »Why do you think that is?
A hint for ya ... its nothing to do with gossiping, and everything to do with the reason for women's opposition in this thread.
Rightly enough, it wouldn't ne nice to be "chatted up" on the way to the bogs-let alone waiting outside a cubicle or while washing your hands. -esp for example a man hovering around the sink for a girl to finish using the toilet so he can have a chat.
So.. Seems like, at the risk of offending a small percentage of individuals (< 0.1%?), continuing to have separate toilets seems like the best solution.0 -
What is happening to this world we live in, where will be next, can people not just get on with their lives[we're not here for long] why is society so caught up in this gender thing, have they nothing else going on in their lives other that genders on their minds all the time.
Because people see the ****e thats going on, particularly in America, where girls are losing out on University scholarships worth thousands of dollars to biological men who "identify" as women, have been required to fight biological men in wrestling competitions, are losing out on medals in, for example, cycling to biological men, were young kids as young as 11 are being given hormonal blockers because they don't know what gender they are.
There are real consequences to this poisonous ideology. I'd like it defeated before it takes a real hold in Ireland. This whole making toilets gender neutral malarky is just an extension of it.
If we have men only toilets, women only toilets and unisex toilets then fair enough. However there should be no legal requirement for unisex and it should be up to a business or government entities as to whether they have them or not.0 -
Mrs OBumble wrote: »Why do you think that is?
A hint for ya ... its nothing to do with gossiping, and everything to do with the reason for women's opposition in this thread.
What? Men go to the toilet on their own because they want to sexually assault women?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Joeytheparrot wrote: »They are toilets. Your sexual orientation is completely irrelevant. If you need to goto the toilet then goto the toilet. Simple.
Are you ok with sanitary bins!? Women doing hair and make up in the mirror!?0 -
splinter65 wrote: »“make up fixing gaggle of gossips”. Other females using the ladies bathroom facilities as a ladies only man free space you mean? That seems to be a ridiculous concept to you.
These ladies appear beneath your contempt.
So much for the sisterhood.
You must find it equally ridiculous that a lot of other women think that someone with a penis and a scrotum should really use the unisex toilet that’s now being rolled everywhere.
Apparently that’s not good enough. Unless men dressed as women are acknowledged as women in every aspect of life and without hesitation by every other woman then there’s outrage.
It’s not going to happen.
Gosh. Such a lot you have read into my wishing to be able to avail myself of the handwashing facilities for hygienic purposes and being irritated when I cannot do so because a group of people (whose gender I never specified) are monopolising the space due to a combination of gossiping and make-up fixing.
I don't care what gender you are. Please move aside and let other people wash their hands at the sinks. It's actually the polite thing to do.
If I find something ridiculous I am perfectly capable of saying so - I do not require you to extrapolate to try and suit your own transphobic agenda thank you very much.
What I do find ridiculous is how people get their innards in an uproar about other people's lives and accuse others of 'outrage' when it is in fact they who are trying to force others to conform to a narrow set of parameters and they who are foaming with outrage.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Gosh. Such a lot you have read into my wishing to be able to avail myself of the handwashing facilities for hygienic purposes and being irritated when I cannot do so because a group of people (whose gender I never specified) are monopolising the space due to a combination of gossiping and make-up fixing.
I don't care what gender you are. Please move aside and let other people wash their hands at the sinks. It's actually the polite thing to do.
"Whose gender I never specified". It is quite evident you were talking about women. Don't try and wiggle out of it. How often have you seen a group of men in a bathroom fixing there make up that you were also in?Bannasidhe wrote: »If I find something ridiculous I am perfectly capable of saying so - I do not require you to extrapolate to try and suit your own transphobic agenda thank you very much.
What is it with certain people throwing out the term transphobic so blase. Nothing that poster said is transphobic. It's a cheap and pathetic way to try and shame people into silence and shut down debate.Bannasidhe wrote: »What I do find ridiculous is how people get their innards in an uproar about other people's lives and accuse others of 'outrage' when it is in fact they who are trying to force others to conform to a narrow set of parameters and they who are foaming with outrage.
It is a set of parameters conformed to by the majority. And the majority seem perfectly content with. This, and other posters, have put across reasons why the status quo of gender segregated toilets should remain. If there is an addition set of toilets that are uni sex then so be it, but gender segregated toilets should remain.0 -
DanDan6592 wrote: »"Whose gender I never specified". It is quite evident you were talking about women. Don't try and wiggle out of it. How often have you seen a group of men in a bathroom fixing there make up that you were also in?
Being honest with you, I’ve never seen it, and yet that’s exactly what some posters were claiming earlier in the thread that women should be able to take a piss in peace without a man powdering his adams apple. I think we can agree to rule that claim out as unreasonable on the basis that it’s extremely unlikely to happen then.DanDan6592 wrote: »What is it with throwing at the term transphobic so blase. Nothing that poster said is transphobic. It's a cheap and pathetic way to try and shame people into silence and shut down debate.
That’s a fair point, it’s as unreasonable as associating people who are transgender with sexually inappropriate behaviour in public bathrooms. That’s also a cheap and pathetic way to suggest people who are transgender should be denied the right to use whichever bathroom they choose, which is the same right as anyone else has. Essentially there’s not much of a debate to be had when people who are transgender have been using public facilities for as long as public facilities have been available.DanDan6592 wrote: »It is a set of parameters conformed to by the majority. And the majority seem perfectly content with. This, and other posters, have put across reasons why the status quo of gender segregated toilets should remain. If there is an addition set of toilets that are uni sex then so be it, but gender segregated toilets should remain.
Yep, it’s a set of parameters conformed to by the majority, and people who are transgender also form part of that majority and generally aren’t campaigning for unisex bathrooms. They’re perfectly happy to use the single sex bathroom facilities that are available to all members of the public. The reasons as to why sex segregated bathrooms should remain though, aren’t particularly compelling, which is why those people with the authority to do so are now installing unisex bathrooms.
It would be cynical of me to suggest that perhaps rather than any attempts at social justice, their greater motivation for introducing these changes is that they realise the cost savings involved in only having to maintain one set of uniform, unisex public facilities.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Being honest with you, I’ve never seen it, and yet that’s exactly what some posters were claiming earlier in the thread that women should be able to take a piss in peace without a man powdering his adams apple. I think we can agree to rule that claim out as unreasonable on the basis that it’s extremely unlikely to happen then.
I don't believe someone made such a claim?One eyed Jack wrote: »That’s a fair point, it’s as unreasonable as associating people who are transgender with sexually inappropriate behaviour in public bathrooms. That’s also a cheap and pathetic way to suggest people who are transgender should be denied the right to use whichever bathroom they choose, which is the same right as anyone else has. Essentially there’s not much of a debate to be had when people who are transgender have been using public facilities for as long as public facilities have been available.
Again I don't believe such a claim has been made.One eyed Jack wrote: »Yep, it’s a set of parameters conformed to by the majority, and people who are transgender also form part of that majority and generally aren’t campaigning for unisex bathrooms. They’re perfectly happy to use the single sex bathroom facilities that are available to all members of the public.
I agree. It's a trans-lobby, a bunch of people who amazingly never seem seem to be trans themselves yet anoint themselves to speak on trans peoples behalf.One eyed Jack wrote: »The reasons as to why sex segregated bathrooms should remain though, aren’t particularly compelling, which is why those people with the authority to do so are now installing unisex bathrooms.
Another poster has giving the statistic that 80% of attacks that happen to women/girls in public toilets happen in unisex ones. Another that girls are afraid to go to the toilet when they are unisex. That's compelling enough for me to at least say "hold on lets think about this". I understand the argument that these attacks may be extremely unlikely, but why unnecessarily increase the risk? The status quo works, and has worked for a long time. We're changing something that doesn't need to be changed.One eyed Jack wrote: »It would be cynical of me to suggest that perhaps rather than any attempts at social justice, their greater motivation for introducing these changes is that they realise the cost savings involved in only having to maintain one set of uniform, unisex public facilities.
haha it would indeed!0 -
DanDan6592 wrote: »I don't believe someone made such a claim?
It’s a long thread I grant you, but -Women should have privacy and not be subject to a 6 and a half foot tall oddball in drag powdering his Adam's apple while they're trying to take a piss.DanDan6592 wrote: »Again I don't believe such a claim has been made.
Oh come on now, the whole basis for objections to unisex facilities is because some people are of the belief that it would allow men in dresses free reign to abuse women and girls. The reality is that they can do that already, they have never sought anyone’s permission to do so. That however isn’t the intent of unisex bathrooms. That minority of men who choose to intimidate and abuse women and girls should be dealt with by the laws which exist already to protect women and girls.
Consider for example the idea of rape culture is based upon the behaviour of a minority of men in society. Essentially it’s that same argument that some people are using to object to the establishment of unisex bathrooms. I dunno ‘bout you but it would seem to be perpetuating irrational catastrophising to me and promoting suspicion of men, as opposed to doing women any favours.DanDan6592 wrote: »I agree. It's a trans-lobby, a bunch of people who amazingly never seem seem to be trans themselves yet anoint themselves to speak on trans peoples behalf.
Yep, and their equivalent of course being the small minority of people who have anointed themselves to speak on behalf of everyone else in society. You know the type that speak of “the silent majority” and make claims about people being ”afraid to speak up”, as though everyone else cares about their issues as much as they do. Two cheeks of the same arse really - one minority is as bad as the other.DanDan6592 wrote: »Another poster has giving the statistic that 80% of attacks that happen to women/girls in public toilets happen in unisex ones. Another that girls are afraid to go to the toilet when they are unisex. That's compelling enough for me to at least say "hold on lets think about this". I understand the argument that these attacks may be extremely unlikely, but why unnecessarily increase the risk? The status quo works, and has worked for a long time. We're changing something that doesn't need to be changed.
The thing to keep in mind with statistics is that they are notoriously unreliable and often subject to spin, to support a particular point of view. Of course upon hearing a statistic like that it’s going to make anyone think “this is a bad idea”. However the proper thing to do in those circumstances is to punish the actual perpetrators, as opposed to punishing everyone else who isn’t doing anything wrong. Design safer unisex facilities would appear to be a better solution as opposed to simply throwing out the idea altogether and thinking that will address the issue of sexual predators misusing public facilities.
The problem really is that the status quo doesn’t work for everyone any more. Sure, it works for the majority of people, but then there are the minority who still need to use a public convenience and have the same entitlement to use a public convenience as anyone else.
It’s the same principle as the article I linked to earlier in which the status quo meant that there were only public conveniences for men, as nobody had thought to provide public conveniences for women, the status quo meant they simply weren’t necessary. Then single sex facilities were introduced and that became the status quo. Now things have changed again, and so there will be a new status quo. People will get used to the new idea in the same way as people have gotten used to new ideas before.DanDan6592 wrote: »haha it would indeed!
I know it’s cynical, but in reality the facts are that enterprises don’t do anything out of the good of their hearts or for the good of anyone’s health. They’re only ever interested in the bottom line - any way they can cut costs while maximising revenue, and realistically it costs a lot less to adapt an already existing system as opposed to doing a complete redesign from the ground up. Absolutely there will be a minority of people who are inconvenienced by the changes, but the vast majority of people won’t care one way or the other and will still continue to use the facilities for their intended purpose.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s a long thread I grant you, but -
Ah I missed that. Don't known how as I read back through most of the thread!One eyed Jack wrote: »Oh come on now, the whole basis for objections to unisex facilities is because some people are of the belief that it would allow men in dresses free reign to abuse women and girls.
Men in dresses aren't necessarily trans people though. And I'd disagree, people object as it (at least potentially) increases the chances of women being assaulted/abused by men full stop.One eyed Jack wrote: »The reality is that they can do that already, they have never sought anyone’s permission to do so. That however isn’t the intent of unisex bathrooms. That minority of men who choose to intimidate and abuse women and girls should be dealt with by the laws which exist already to protect women and girls.
What is the point then?One eyed Jack wrote: »Consider for example the idea of rape culture is based upon the behaviour of a minority of men in society. Essentially it’s that same argument that some people are using to object to the establishment of unisex bathrooms. I dunno ‘bout you but it would seem to be perpetuating irrational catastrophising to me and promoting suspicion of men, as opposed to doing women any favours.
No, look I get you are saying. The point I'm making is that we are making a change to the status quo that potentially increases the danger (even if that danger is incredibly small), for no good apparent reason, or to seemingly accommodate a tiny proportion of people who may not even want this accomodation in the first place.
It's not quite the same as suggesting there is a rape culture.One eyed Jack wrote: »Yep, and their equivalent of course being the small minority of people who have anointed themselves to speak on behalf of everyone else in society. You know the type that speak of “the silent majority” and make claims about people being ”afraid to speak up”, as though everyone else cares about their issues as much as they do. Two cheeks of the same arse really - one minority is as bad as the other.
Not really. One group is trying to foist change on wider society without knowing if society wants this change in the first place, or if even that group that they claim they are trying to help wants this change. That, in my opinion, makes them a little worse.One eyed Jack wrote: »The thing to keep in mind with statistics is that they are notoriously unreliable and often subject to spin, to support a particular point of view. Of course upon hearing a statistic like that it’s going to make anyone think “this is a bad idea”. However the proper thing to do in those circumstances is to punish the actual perpetrators, as opposed to punishing everyone else who isn’t doing anything wrong. Design safer unisex facilities would appear to be a better solution as opposed to simply throwing out the idea altogether and thinking that will address the issue of sexual predators misusing public facilities.
Ah. Now I fundamentally disagree with you here. The idea of creating a situation were women/girls are more likely to be abused/assaulted simply to accomodate a tiny minority of people is to me simply unacceptable. If we have segregated toilets plus gender neutral ones then fair enough. The reality is however the overwhelming amount of places will not be ina situation to provide this. Imo, in order to do so it'll be the female toilets that will get changed, as it's MtF of the trans community that (seem) to be the ones that tend to make the most fuss about these things. And tbh, not even them. It's probably more people who claim to be "gender-neutral" or "fluid".One eyed Jack wrote: »The problem really is that the status quo doesn’t work for everyone any more. Sure, it works for the majority of people, but then there are the minority who still need to use a public convenience and have the same entitlement to use a public convenience as anyone else.
They have this convenience. They can use the toilet of their biological sex. And if have gone through the sex change, the toilet of their new corresponding sex.One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s the same principle as the article I linked to earlier in which the status quo meant that there were only public conveniences for men, as nobody had thought to provide public conveniences for women, the status quo meant they simply weren’t necessary. Then single sex facilities were introduced and that became the status quo. Now things have changed again, and so there will be a new status quo. People will get used to the new idea in the same way as people have gotten used to new ideas before.
The principle might be technically the same, however that status quo affected ~50% of the population, this does not. This is compounded by the fact that it may lead to women/girls being placed in dangerous situations needlessly, though I accept that the danger is slim why increase the risk?One eyed Jack wrote: »I know it’s cynical, but in reality the facts are that enterprises don’t do anything out of the good of their hearts or for the good of anyone’s health. They’re only ever interested in the bottom line - any way they can cut costs while maximising revenue, and realistically it costs a lot less to adapt an already existing system as opposed to doing a complete redesign from the ground up. Absolutely there will be a minority of people who are inconvenienced by the changes, but the vast majority of people won’t care one way or the other and will still continue to use the facilities for their intended purpose.
Why should the inconvenience of that minority be trumped by the inconvenience of the current minority?0 -
DanDan6592 wrote: »Why should the inconvenience of that minority be trumped by the inconvenience of the current minority?
This is essentially what it comes down to. And the solution as far as I can see is to design public facilities which offer all users privacy, regardless of their sex, gender, disability, whether they need baby changing facilities or whether they’re adults or children. That way nobody should have to feel as though they are unable to use the facilities due to concerns for their privacy or their safety, and the few individuals who contravene those standards or try to use the facilities for purposes for which they are not intended should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »This is essentially what it comes down to. And the solution as far as I can see is to design public facilities which offer all users privacy, regardless of their sex, gender, disability, whether they need baby changing facilities or whether they’re adults or children. That way nobody should have to feel as though they are unable to use the facilities due to concerns for their privacy or their safety, and the few individuals who contravene those standards or try to use the facilities for purposes for which they are not intended should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
So, separate facilities for biological females?
That way we can reduce physical and sexual attacks against females. Seems like a no brainier to me.
Or else, we can increase the likelihood of females being assaulted just to appease males who want to wear dresses.0 -
So, separate facilities for biological females?
That way we can reduce physical and sexual attacks against females. Seems like a no brainier to me.
Or else, we can increase the likelihood of females being assaulted just to appease males who want to wear dresses.
How does separate facilities reduce physical and sexual attacks against anyone that already happen, in separate sex facilities?
Maintaining separate sex facilities or introducing unisex facilities does nothing either to reduce or increase the likelihood of preventing anyone from being assaulted, regardless of their sex, gender, age or disability.
As I’ve pointed out already - men who wear dresses can already use the facilities, and still you are failing to address the issue of people being subjected to physical and sexual assaults in public facilities.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh, welcome to the debate. Even though you haven't got a clue about what you are talking about. I will gladly tear you down on nonsense argument you present.
Let me know when you’re ready to start addressing the question I asked then -
How does separate facilities reduce physical and sexual attacks against anyone that already happen, in separate sex facilities?
Sexual predators don’t need to wear dresses, is the fundamental failure in your argument, and the reality is that many of them don’t already. I can walk into a women’s bathroom and there is nothing to prevent me from doing so. I can use the facilities to do my business, and then leave. I am a biological male who doesn’t need to wear a dress to enter the women’s bathroom. Wearing a dress would likely make me even more obvious. A biological female with a beard is equally as likely or as unlikely to make anyone feel as uncomfortable as I could, as would a woman entering the men’s bathroom be as likely to make some men feel uncomfortable.
In any of those circumstances, anyone could be a sexual predator, and anyone could be a victim.0 -
Entirely unnecessary and more pandering to the Twitter identity politics brigade that has become increasingly prevalent in Ireland lately (because "we" have an institutional "need" to be liked and validated on the international stage for what good boys and girls we are) :rolleyes:
I have deeper concerns about plans to start teaching this stuff to young children though who have no understanding of the concepts or indeed agendas behind it.
The more militant this stuff gets (you're either with us and advocating or you're worse than Hitler), the less tolerance I have for the message.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »This is essentially what it comes down to. And the solution as far as I can see is to design public facilities which offer all users privacy, regardless of their sex, gender, disability, whether they need baby changing facilities or whether they’re adults or children. That way nobody should have to feel as though they are unable to use the facilities due to concerns for their privacy or their safety, and the few individuals who contravene those standards or try to use the facilities for purposes for which they are not intended should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
This would mean stand alone like toilets so to be speak, like most disabled toilets are currently. A few of these could be put side by side, but that requires more room and increases waiting times. Also, as I pointed out, most business' may not be in a position to do this. It really is change for changes sake to appease an outreagously small lobby who will never be appeased anyway.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »How does separate facilities reduce physical and sexual attacks against anyone that already happen, in separate sex facilities?
Maintaining separate sex facilities or introducing unisex facilities does nothing either to reduce or increase the likelihood of preventing anyone from being assaulted, regardless of their sex, gender, age or disability.
As I’ve pointed out already - men who wear dresses can already use the facilities, and still you are failing to address the issue of people being subjected to physical and sexual assaults in public facilities.
As been said already, a study showed that 80% of attacks on women in public toilets took place in unisex toilets. So it seemingly does increase the risk than gender segregated toilets.0 -
DanDan6592 wrote: »As been said already, a study showed that 80% of attacks on women in public toilets took place in unisex toilets. So it seemingly does increase the risk than gender segregated toilets.
What study?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
0 -
Joeytheparrot wrote: »What study?
Under Freedom of Information a newspaper got the 2017 -2018 stats.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html
Its 90% not 80 %0 -
DanDan6592 wrote: »This would mean stand alone like toilets so to be speak, like most disabled toilets are currently. A few of these could be put side by side, but that requires more room and increases waiting times. Also, as I pointed out, most business' may not be in a position to do this. It really is change for changes sake to appease an outreagously small lobby who will never be appeased anyway.
Well standalone cubicles with disability access are certainly one way of addressing the issues involved for each of those minorities which make up the majority of users of the facilities. It would also address concerns about privacy for those people who are concerned about their privacy in public facilities. It would of course mean a change in building regulations, but it’s not the first time there have been changes made in building regulations to accommodate as many people as possible who make up the members of the general public.
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. If the concern was for people’s welfare, then it would stand to reason that those people would be more concerned with introducing measures to prevent physical and sexual assaults from happening to anyone, as opposed to attempting to prevent any group of people who need to use the facilities for their intended purpose.DanDan6592 wrote: »As been said already, a study showed that 80% of attacks on women in public toilets took place in unisex toilets. So it seemingly does increase the risk than gender segregated toilets.
Well colour me shocked that when the number of unisex bathrooms increases, the number of complaints made against people in unisex bathrooms increases! That’s due to the increase in the number of unisex bathrooms, whereas if you truly wanted an accurate representation of the figures, you would compare the actual number of assaults in single sex facilities with the number of assaults in unisex facilities. The actual figure for the number of assaults in single sex facilities would be far greater than unisex facilities, given there are more single sex facilities than unisex facilities. In reality, it would be impossible to get an accurate figure for either, given that the data is dependent upon complaints made, as opposed to the number of assaults that actually take place which are unreported.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »whereas if you truly wanted an accurate representation of the figures, you would compare the actual number of assaults in single sex facilities with the number of assaults in unisex facilities. The actual figure for the number of assaults in single sex facilities would be far greater than unisex facilities, given there are more single sex facilities than unisex facilities. .
As himself often says to me - jokingly of course - "Do you never tire of being wrong?".....
From the link above.
Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.
In a further 46 cases, sexual assault allegations were made about attacks in other areas such as in the pool, in a sports hall or corridors.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Well standalone cubicles with disability access are certainly one way of addressing the issues involved for each of those minorities which make up the majority of users of the facilities. It would also address concerns about privacy for those people who are concerned about their privacy in public facilities. It would of course mean a change in building regulations, but it’s not the first time there have been changes made in building regulations to accommodate as many people as possible who make up the members of the general public.
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. If the concern was for people’s welfare, then it would stand to reason that those people would be more concerned with introducing measures to prevent physical and sexual assaults from happening to anyone, as opposed to attempting to prevent any group of people who need to use the facilities for their intended purpose.
No it isn't. I've said this to you a few times now already. You are being disingenuous now. Why do you think the 80/90% statistic was brought up. It's to show that unisex toilets/changing rooms decrease the safety of women.
One way to prevent/decrease sexual assaults, attacks or harassment is to have certain spaces split by gender i.e.toilets and changing rooms. You want to undo this, and then suggest that we should focus on introducing measures to prevent sexual assaults happening on anyone. But that is what genderised spaces are for. It is a measure.One eyed Jack wrote: »Well colour me shocked that when the number of unisex bathrooms increases, the number of complaints made against people in unisex bathrooms increases! That’s due to the increase in the number of unisex bathrooms, whereas if you truly wanted an accurate representation of the figures, you would compare the actual number of assaults in single sex facilities with the number of assaults in unisex facilities. The actual figure for the number of assaults in single sex facilities would be far greater than unisex facilities, given there are more single sex facilities than unisex facilities. In reality, it would be impossible to get an accurate figure for either, given that the data is dependent upon complaints made, as opposed to the number of assaults that actually take place which are unreported.
You are wrong here on all accounts.0 -
Advertisement
-
As himself often says to me - jokingly of course - "Do you never tire of being wrong?".....
From the link above.
Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.
In a further 46 cases, sexual assault allegations were made about attacks in other areas such as in the pool, in a sports hall or corridors.
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 Myths0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
.
Advertisement