GN Toilets

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.

[Deleted User] · 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.

[Deleted User] · 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.

GN Toilets

Comments