Would you really need 36 individual bathrooms in order to serve a capacity of 36? Most of the time when I am in the bathroom at work there is only one other person in there. I assume it is the same in the men’s room. That means that there are four bathroom users at any one time; rounding up to five to make the fractions easier that means you have one bathroom for every five people. Seems adequate to me. And five closet-sized individual bathrooms can’t take up more room than two ten-stall bathrooms with a full wall of sinks. Of course, I am not a zoning person or a construction worker, just someone who dislikes public bathrooms. It would also be harder to build such bathrooms in high-capacity places like stadiums, than in a place like work where there is a much lower ratio of person to bathroom. But personally I find huge bathrooms in low capacity places to be kind of a waste.
Actually, the new Millennium Park restaurant in Chicago has precisely this set up. Three separate units on either side of the huge restaurant. IT’S. NOT. ENOUGH. I don’t remember if they had men’s separate units and women’s separate units, or if it was just a free-for-all, but it sucked.
Heh, if guys can handle the sight of overflowing feminine hygiene waste can gals can handle the sight of an piss splattered urinal.
I prefer segregated restrooms, but in certain circumstances, unisex facilities would work out just as well.
It appears even gender rights advocates are split on the issue of gender-neutral public facilities.
One one side, there’s Margaret Stumpp who opposes NYU’s gender-neutral bathroom proposal on the grounds it:
Probably not the best argument I’ve heard against unisex potties, but who am I to say?
On the other side is Pauline Park who feels:
With regards to the Semaj Bogan case cited in the OP, Ms Park said:
If the interpretation of that regulation is incorrect, why has the security firm at the Manhattan Mall ordered its employees to allow patrons to use whichever restroom they want?
It’s all very well to say “Just use the one that you’re most comfortable with!”, but I will just share with you the fact that at a recent meeting of the McGill Trans/Gender Alliance, two members had friends both of whom had been arrested using the washroom at Grand Central Station. One had been using the washroom of their assigned gender; the other had been using the washroom of their gender of identification.
Trans and androgynous people are simply not safe no matter which washroom they choose. A trans woman may be assaulted in a man’s washroom by men who object to her gender presentation, and in a women’s washroom by women who perceive her as a man.
Add to this the fact that in most cases, trans people are required to spend time cross-living before they get hormones, surgery, or legal identification. This puts them at severe risk for people attacking them on the basis of their gender presentation. Some trans people have to ‘hold it in’ so much that they can develop bladder infections.
Gender-neutral washrooms would solve not only this problem, but also problems with, for example, parents who need to take their opposite-gender child to the washroom, or cases in which men’s and women’s washrooms are far apart, one is out of order or more difficult for people with reduced mobility to access, etc.
And I love all the people who are perfectly willing to assign Ms. Bogan a gender identity for her. I’m told most people can go for hours, even days, without being asked to justify their choices about their genitals or hormones.
I think the OP is talking about a situation where 36 toilets were the number required by lax as opposed to a situation with just 36 occupants. 36 seperate rooms would take up more room and require more plumbing (for example, 36 sinks instead of shared sinks) than a large room with 36 stalls (or urinals).
The number of toilets (or urinals) required depend on the occupancy of a building. This page shows the requirements according to the Texas Dept. Of State Health Services. These are just general guidelines, specific buildings such as bars (more toilets required if alchohol is served) and stadiums have their own rules. Note also that it requires:
Which doesn’t seem to preclude the unisex single use rooms.
Let me also ask: would it be acceptable to prevent a non-trans woman with facial hair, who prefers “men’s” clothing, from using the women’s room? Even if some other woman might think she was a man/a predator? Why or why not?
Thing is most bearded ladies are still very recognizably female. There are very real visual cues beyond lack of facial hair and clothing (which is what makes it so frustrating for the transgendered I know).
Personally, I’m against it for the safety reasons given by JohnBckWLD in another post. I don’t want some pervy guy in the stall next to me.
Just to clarify, the 36 I was referring to was the amount of floor space / number of square feet ([/]) each of continuity eror’s proposed private facilities would require.
That’s gonna be a hard one to sell to the public. In this non-utopian world of ours, you’re gonna come up against some real stiff resistance (and catch quite a stink) when the majority of people start weighing the benefits and drawbacks of such a solution. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and I have a feeling it’ll take even longer before we see gender-neutral public washrooms.
Plenty of androgynous-looking nontrans women get hassled about their gender going into washrooms. If it’s acceptable to exclude butch trans women, why is it unacceptable to exclude butch non-trans women, or femme trans women? What’s with the gender identity quiz?
This person is definitely hurting their cause by dressing in men’s clothing. I think most of us would be okay with a guy in drag using the ladies’ room, since there really isn’t anything threatening about that. It’s techinally possible that a person in drag might be a potential rapist, but the possiblity seems remote given their own safety concerns compared to someone who just looks like a guy. I realize that if this person thinks of theirself as female they might feel “funny” about using the men’s room, but by using the ladies room to combat this they’re just pushing the discomfort off of themselves and onto a lot more people, namely the women who wonder what his deal is. That’s selfish.
As for unisex bathrooms, I’m torn. If there were no urinals(that’d just be embrassing for everyone), I think they’d be fine in most workplaces. I wouldn’t mind it where I work, for example. The fact that people know you there would probably enough to keep someone who might take advantage of the situation on the straight and narrow. And if not, that personality type probably would be as much a threat in parking lots and dimly lit hallways too.
I don’t like the idea of unisex bathroom in truly public places, though. There are just way too many random creeps out there for that to be a good idea.
I’m all for unisex bathrooms, starting with the science building here. The women’s rooms are the size of broom closets. The men’s rooms are roomy inside. I hate gender segregation, it just makes life hard. With my group of friends, there is no stigma attatched to gender. I’ve lived with male roommates and would change in front of them as I do with my female roommates. It was actaully amusing last summer, because I’ve lived in this genderless college world, I got confused. We were going to a concert and I went to get into the shortest line for security checks. My roommate grabbed my arm and asked what I was doing. I told her I was getting into the shortest line. She pointed out that there was a male guard in that line which meant it was for guys. It took me a minute to understand that one.
And there’s the problem! Men, women… it 's too confusing. I believe my idea of a penis room and a vagina room would solve this. It doesn’t matter with what you identify with, if it’s “false”, if you crave it; none of these matters. If you own one, you step right in! See? Easy!
Um, is it selfish, under any circumstances, to discomfort people in ways that are entirely their problem? I refer you to my earlier scenario, which is not hypothetical: what if it’s a non-trans woman who can be mistaken for a guy and who chooses not to wear “women’s” clothes? Should she forgo dressing as she prefers because some woman in the washroom might go “eek, a guy”? If not, why should the woman in question?
I realize you’re probably being somewhat facetious, but not everyone does.
Further, is there any reason to announce your genital status when going through the bathroom door? Usually, genitals are private business. It would, I think, make things worse, not better, because then even ‘passing’ pre/non-op trans people would have to announce their assigned sex when going through the door (should they choose to comply with the scheme.) It would make things real easy for the trans-bashers… let’s just wait until a lady comes out of the penis room!
(No, I can’t believe I just typed that sentence. Never mind.)
I’m sorry for having failed to think like a bigot, but you do realize that could happen under any circumstances where talk of gender takes place, right? While made in jest, my comment does make some sense in that there should exist the correct equipment for the related… instrument. If we go by the thread’s predominant utopian views, which is a good exercise in polling the public’s preferences, and create unisex Johns (I like how that sounds) then what would be next to follow the trend and avoid causing any harm? Eliminate gynecologists? Destroy gay bars? Sounds silly, but yeah, it’s an option.
But, like you say, “genitals are private business”. Exactly. Even in the men’s bathroom I keep as private as I can, and I’m sure as hell I wouldn’t feel comfortable with females around. No, sir. As a guy, that’s my guy space, and to clarify: the space between me and the urinal is the definitive guy space. Really. Forcing me to share that space with the shudder other gender is going to piss me off (hmm… pun), but as angering me goes, all I’m going to do is hold it and wait till I’m home. On the other hand, following your train of thought, there are people who would get mightily bothered by, not women, but transgendered folk sharing “their” space and will do exactly what you’re thinking in your post, regardless of whether they’re in or out of the toilet.
In the case of the man-woman mentioned in the thread, you can see how her insistence in using the women’s room is going to get her in trouble. Walks like a man, dresses like one, fails the dreaded test “Is it in you?” for all things considered “it”, the she should probably enter the room that folk use who look exactly like her. Is it really that bad? Is she so hurt by this? It’s for practical reasons. She’s going there to pee, not for any life-changing event. Maybe she’s as bothered as me in having to “share” the bathroom, but -based on this thread- she’s in the minority, same as me. Her option? Hold it… same as me.
In this, I’ll have to agree with the Pythons (from Life of Brian, taken from the imdb):
Judith: [on Stan’s desire to be a mother] Here! I’ve got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’ - but that he can have the right to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother… sister, sorry.
Reg: What’s the point?
Francis: What?
Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.
You’re conflating different things here. As you know, gender is the social dimension. In activities that society is concerned with, we deal with others’ genders – not their sex.
What exactly do you think a trans man is going to do to you in your bathroom? Do you think he’s going to do anything other than pop into a stall, pop out, wash his hands, and leave?
And nobody, I note with some frustration, has yet answered my question: a non-trans woman who is often mistaken for a man, what bathroom should she use? Does another woman have any right to freak out at her because she thinks she’s a guy? If not, what difference does it make if she’s trans or non-trans?
If the woman referred to in the OP were non-trans, but otherwise her case was the same (often mistaken for a man, wears men’s clothes), it would be inconceivable to take other people’s mistaken beliefs about her gender as a guide to what bathroom she should use. It is only because she is trans that non-trans people feel they have the right to dictate to her what gender she is. That pisses me off!
with regards to unisex toilets, the only area that needs to be private is the stalls. which can be converted to tiny unisex one person rooms like what continuity eror said, except there will only be a toilet in the… toilet. sink and mirror areas will be shared in public areas where the genders mingle.
i believe this will reduce down time. women will just have to relocate their secret meetings elsewhere and leave the toilets to be used as such.
:dubious:
No. I didn’t say he’s going to do anything to me. You said:
And I said that those people now don’t have to wait! That’s what I said. And my position still stands: if you’re female on the inside, but male on the outside → men’s room. Female on the outside? → women’s room. The idea of a public washroom, but with separate connections to the toilets and unirals (hopefully cloaked for the shy among us) → good idea. In fact, I’ve already been to those.
Now, the whys and FUs you can save for later. I’m not in the mood.
But what constitutes “female/male on the outside”? Who gets to decide?
I really wish someone would answer my question about the non-trans woman who looks like a guy, because it’s extremely pertinent. Does she count as male or female on the outside?
Well, I don’t think I’m taking an FU attitude; I am trying to understand and hopefully persuade. But I think the whys are central to the position.
Sorry for the follow-up.
Does she have any right to freak out if she thinks there’s a man there? Well, yeah. She can freak out whenever the freak she wants! Regardless of what she thinks, I still said it right. That “guy” she “saw” is female on the outside. Notice I don’t say she looked female. There’s a difference.
And now, I await the next convoluted presentation of what would be an occurance of one in millions, unique in its existence. I think I can handle it.
Again, she’s male (as in… you know, let’s not get touchy or philosophical, biological, or social about this). If she were a he in the traditional, all-around sense, then it’s still a he we’re talking about. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks: you know.
Look, I’m sorry I don’t address this more thoroughly. I wouldn’t freak out if I were watching two transgendered gay men in public, so to dictate rules or trying to balance things out for those who aren’t as loose as I am, it’s a bit difficult. I still think the female-male outside-o-rama (what a poor choice of words) perspective works in general. Beats out standing in between bathrooms, confused and really having to go.