GN Toilets

Gynoid · 28-10-2019 1:44pm

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.

is_that_so · 28-10-2019 1:48pm

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?

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 1:56pm

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?

Annasopra · 28-10-2019 1:57pm

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.

_Kaiser_ · 28-10-2019 2:02pm

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.

Annasopra · 28-10-2019 2:02pm

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.

_Kaiser_ · 28-10-2019 2:04pm

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.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 2:04pm

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.

One eyed Jack · 28-10-2019 2:08pm

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.

Gynoid · 28-10-2019 2:09pm

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.

_Kaiser_ · 28-10-2019 2:18pm

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.

Annasopra · 28-10-2019 2:18pm

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.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:20pm

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.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 2:20pm

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.

is_that_so · 28-10-2019 2:22pm

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-10-2019 2:26pm

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...?

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 2:26pm

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.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:31pm

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?

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:32pm

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.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 2:35pm

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.

is_that_so · 28-10-2019 2:35pm

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.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:37pm

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.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 2:39pm

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.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:40pm

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?

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:40pm

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?

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 2:43pm

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.

is_that_so · 28-10-2019 2:46pm

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.

StinkyMunkey · 28-10-2019 2:46pm

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.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:49pm

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.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:51pm

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?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 28-10-2019 2:51pm

If I read any article and they refer to me as “cis-gender” it’s an automatic to close the tab.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 2:51pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

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?

Yes, with the addition that it's off topic. Zorya I believe is a poster that gave reasons why she didn't like the term. Look up her posts.

manbitesdog wrote: »

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.

But you just have distiguished between women and trans-women. And you didn't use the term cis or cis-gender.

splinter65 · 28-10-2019 2:54pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

There is nothing insulting about the term cisgender.

I’m insulted by it.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:55pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Yes, with the addition that it's off topic. Zorya I believe is a poster that gave reasons why she didn't like the term. Look up her posts.

If you’re going to make an argument, at least try to back it up, and not retreat into “go look up someone else’s posts.” You are claiming this a valid position but are unwilling, or let’s face it, unable to defend it.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 2:56pm

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m insulted by it.

Ok, great. Can provide reasons why?

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 2:57pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

If you’re going to make an argument, at least try to back it up, and not retreat into “go look up someone else’s posts.” You are claiming this a valid position but are unwilling, or let’s face it, unable to defend it.

I'm not bothered defending it, it's off topic. If you care for their reasons go find the posts. I told you Zorya. Or ask Splinter there.

is_that_so · 28-10-2019 2:58pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

Why is it dumb?

As a word it offers no real instinctive meaning - that has to be interpreted by applying a very narrow set of parameters, from gender politics and even that's not clear. I'm still unsure why people continue to use it and from what I've observed it's often used a way of defining otherness and not necessarily in a complementary way, a for or agin' us approach if you will. In this happy inclusive world we all live in now, people should also have the right not to be labelled with such terms.

28-10-2019 3:00pm

Cis-men.

WTF is that? Is that like seahorse-unicorn-apache-men?

Men, just men. Women, just women. We are what we are. If you want to make up some new label for yourself because you don’t think you are what you are, grand.

There’s no ‘cis’ about me. So keep your silly little labels for people with silly ideas about the world.

I was born with a dick and a pair of balls between my legs. I am, therefore, a man.

Gynoid · 28-10-2019 3:01pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

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.

There you go, that was easy wasnt it. Woman - Transwoman. Everyone knows what you mean. No need to thrash the language to be inclusive.

Woman is an adult, human female - it does not need further parsing to suggest it is a subdivision of a category. It IS the category. Woman. Transwoman is someone whose gender identity does not collude with the biological sex in which they were born. People know what it means.

Woman, transwoman, man, transman, it works just fine, and is true.

Unless you are one if the extremists who insist that biological reality actually changes by identification? In which case, I dont share your religious belief.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 3:03pm

Gynoid wrote: »

There you go, that was easy wasnt it. Woman - Transwoman. Everyone knows what you mean. No need to thrash the language to be inclusive.

Woman is an adult, human female - it does not need further parsing to suggest it is a subdivision of a category. It IS the category. Woman. Transwoman is someone whose gender identity does not collude with the biological sex in which they were born. People know what it means.

Woman, transwoman, man, transman, it works just fine, and is true.

Unless you are one if the extremists who insist that biological reality actually changes by identification? In which case, I dont share your religious belief.

Precisely. Funny how they cut out the part of my response when I mentioned this in their reply to me.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 3:04pm

is_that_so wrote: »

As a word it offers no real instinctive meaning - that has to be interpreted by applying a very narrow set of parameters, from gender politics. I'm still unsure why people continue to use it and what I've observed it's often used a way of defining otherness and not necessarily in a complementary way. In this happy inclusive world we all live in now people should also have the right not to be labelled with such terms.

I presume you mean complimentary, not complementary.

The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as. It’s not a derogatory term in any way, any more than heterosexual is, which was only coined to distinguish what we now commonly refer to as heterosexuality from homosexuality.

28-10-2019 3:09pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

I presume you mean complimentary, not complementary.

The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as. It’s not a derogatory term in any way, any more than heterosexual is, which was only coined to distinguish what we now commonly refer to as heterosexuality from homosexuality.

Nope.

I’ll infer what I mean.

Do you mean to infer that referring to someone as a trans-woman or trans-man is derogatory?

Call a spade a spade. I’m a man. My wife is a woman. She can use ‘he/him’ and I can use ‘she/her’, but if I have a cock, balls and a beard, no way should I be making my way into the ladies toilets.

People need to cop TF on to themselves.

Gynoid · 28-10-2019 3:11pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

I presume you mean complimentary, not complementary.

The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as. It’s not a derogatory term in any way, any more than heterosexual is, which was only coined to distinguish what we now commonly refer to as heterosexuality from homosexuality.

Any sensible transgender person knows they are not really the SEX they identify as - Blaire White, Jenn Smith, Fionn Alexander, Miranda Hartley, there are innumerable sensible good-natured intelligent trans people, who have made their peace with reality and who object to extreme activists trying to ram biological treason down peoples throats.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 3:12pm

JayZeus wrote: »

Nope.

I’ll infer what I mean.

Do you mean to infer that referring to someone as a trans-woman or trans-man is derogatory?

Call a spade a spade. I’m a man. My wife is a woman. She can use ‘he/him’ and I can use ‘she/her’, but if I have a cock, balls and a beard, no way should I be making my way into the ladies toilets.

People need to cop TF on to themselves.

You’ll “infer what you mean”? Why would you need to infer what you mean? Is what you mean a secret from yourself?

p1akuw47h5r3it · 28-10-2019 3:14pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

I presume you mean complimentary, not complementary.

The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as. It’s not a derogatory term in any way, any more than heterosexual is, which was only coined to distinguish what we now commonly refer to as heterosexuality from homosexuality.

This doesn't make sense to me. If someone is trans-gendered they are by implication of this not "cis"-gendered. So how does the use of the word cis "avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as"?

antix80 · 28-10-2019 3:14pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

There are a few things going on.

One is diminishing the respect (and yes, feeling of safety), women should be treated with by forcing them to share a bathroom with men.

Second, is diminishing their safety by allowing sex pests and perverts - whether transgender or not - to share women's spaces. Such individuals, a minority, are predatory so will use the situation to their advantage.

And finally, allowing xy individuals into the space of xx individuals. It's not always apparent the genetic makeup of individuals but the usual (outdated?) view is that xx are women and xy are men. Hey ho.

So - very hard to formulate a fair policy other than to say, in a venue large enough to have to facilitate the bathroom needs of men and women - leave women with the dignity of using the bathroom in peace without being subject to men, genetic men and male perverts being in their space.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 3:21pm

antix80 wrote: »

There are a few things going on.

One is diminishing the respect (and yes, feeling of safety), women should be treated with by forcing them to share a bathroom with men.

Second, is diminishing their safety by allowing sex pests and perverts - whether transgender or not - to share women's spaces. Such individuals, a minority, are predatory so will use the situation to their advantage.

And finally, allowing xy individuals into the space of xx individuals. It's not always apparent the genetic makeup of individuals but the usual (outdated?) view is that xx are women and xy are men. Hey ho.

So - very hard to formulate a fair policy other than to say, in a venue large enough to have to facilitate the bathroom needs of men and women - leave women with the dignity of using the bathroom in peace without being subject to men, genetic men and male perverts being in their space.

How do you want this segregated bathroom policy enforced? Do people show their chromosomes on the way in?

antix80 · 28-10-2019 3:26pm

manbitesdog wrote: »

How do you want this segregated bathroom policy enforced? Do people show their chromosomes on the way in?

No - you expect people not to be sh**ty and use the toilet that won't make women feel uncomfortable. If they're unsure they should ask management to clarify or simply use a special needs toilet.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 3:27pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

This doesn't make sense to me. If someone is trans-gendered they are by implication of this not "cis"-gendered. So how does the use of the word cis "avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as"?

Because cisgender doesn’t mean “you really are the gender you present as”; it means your gender identity corresponds to your sex at birth (there are different views about sex too ofc, but I don’t know enough about the arguments there to talk about them).

Transgender means your gender identity doesn’t correspond with your sex at birth.

manbitesdog · 28-10-2019 3:33pm

antix80 wrote: »

No - you expect people not to be sh**ty and use the toilet that won't make women feel uncomfortable. If they're unsure they should ask management to clarify or simply use a special needs toilet.

Why would it make you uncomfortable? You could be using the same toilet as transwomen and not recognize them as transwomen. Is it just the ones immediately recognizable as transwomen who shouldn’t use the ladies, since your rationale is that they shouldn’t “make women feel uncomfortable”?

And if a ciswoman might be mistaken for a man, should she also use the disabled toilets, since presumably she makes you feel uncomfortable too?

GN Toilets

Comments