Jump to content
Leonid

Guys, it's ok. We have a safe space

Recommended Posts

Just now, Nich... said:

So your argument against having better toilets for everyone


That’s a bold new claim given you’ve yet to show why a unisex bathroom is better for anyone?

1 minute ago, Nich... said:

You skip urinals


So now you force men to use cubicles which consume more space than the urinal does.

 

So you go to a bigger bathroom and you still haven’t actually achieved anything useful because unisex bathrooms have zero benefit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, @~thehung said:


hmm. 

 

and here i was thinking that when i said "i am not suggesting we should or could have them everywhere", and repeatedly  "they wouldnt be appropriate or viable for every kind of venue and demographic" that no sane person would assume i was saying that unisex toilets would be viable and appropriate for the 0.5% of homeless in this country.

Hmm

My mention of the homeless was ALL about your comment that most of us like to use our private "throne" for shitting in and not public loos. Stating the style of public convenience it might be is irrelevant to the needs of the homeless, as they still need to shit in public loos.... you know, being homeless means the public loo is their only choice of throne.

My point was all about privilege

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Leonid said:

So now you force men to use cubicles which consume more space than the urinal does.

 

So you go to a bigger bathroom and you still haven’t actually achieved anything useful because unisex bathrooms have zero benefit

That's a bold claim to make for someone who avoids urinals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nich... said:

That's a bold claim to make for someone who avoids urinals.

 

When you have a Prince Albert............it just randomly sprays everywhere!

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eveln said:

Hmm

My mention of the homeless was ALL about your comment that most of us like to use our private "throne" for shitting in and not public loos. Stating the style of public convenience it might be is irrelevant to the needs of the homeless, as they still need to shit in public loos.... you know, being homeless means the public loo is their only choice of throne.

My point was all about privilege

 

"people generally shit once a day, and if they can help it, they far prefer the privacy and comfort of their own throne"

 

 

it would be an argument from privilege if i was saying something that warranted consideration of the homeless.  instead, i was speaking generally about the toilet habits of people en masse, and how they impact on the total demand for cubicles in male toilets assuming urinals are present.  generally speaking, people arent homeless.  99.5% in fact.  hence, the homeless are small enough in number to have a negligible effect on that total demand.  their existence, whilst lamentable, is nevertheless totally irrelevant to the point i was making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

if i was saying something that warranted consideration of the homeless. 

 ...  you'd want to hope the homeless are welcome in your public loos along with the males and females that are not yet homeless. If not the streets will be awash with the putrid detritus of their boweIs. I don't bother mentioning the other genders, they get the red carpet treatment where ever they choose to go

 

[ please be sure to read the above as dripping with sarcasm or, * shrugs *, satire ]

 

ps: the homeless have been a part of general society since like forever dude. The numbers differ a tad from time to time, is all. So I'd say they are a part of any of our societies, past or present and future, unfortunately

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, @~thehung said:

  hence, the homeless are small enough in number to have a negligible effect on that total demand.

so what are the figures of those that consider themselves other than bog-standard-male-female gender ? Is that a comparable figure to the homeless ? If so, why are we even considering them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eveln said:

so what are the figures of those that consider themselves other than bog-standard-male-female gender ? Is that a comparable figure to the homeless ? If so, why are we even considering them ?

in terms of assessing the minimum footprint in m² of a unisex facility that could cope with demand, and whether or not that minimum would necessarily be bigger than a mens and women's toilet combined?  their numbers would be a comparably negligible factor

 

On 1/14/2020 at 4:21 PM, @~thehung said:

at 0.6% of the population, and possibly half that for men, who would maybe use tampon bins a handful of times per year, i will leave it up to others to decide the cost/benefit of outfitting mens toilets with them.  i am not discounting the potential intangibles in terms of the public good, and maybe a less vacuous article would give me some factual context in that regard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused, among all the talk of toasters, did I miss the bit where homeless people are no longer allowed to use public toilets if they're unisex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nich... said:

I'm a little confused, among all the talk of toasters, did I miss the bit where homeless people are no longer allowed to use public toilets if they're unisex?

don't think so

but then you'd best ask @~thehung for clarification on that ... he seems to have the essence of the situation sorted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

 

in a nutshell:

 

we need to build large capacity unisex public toasters.

 

to feed the homeless. 

 

 

cpAy3nr.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was out and about in my wheelchair when i came across a traffic light 

the red light changed to a green man walking

i felt so discriminated against

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Nich... said:

That's a bold claim to make for someone who avoids urinals.

 

Who avoids urinals?

14 hours ago, eveln said:

so what are the figures of those that consider themselves other than bog-standard-male-female gender ? Is that a comparable figure to the homeless ? If so, why are we even considering them ?

 

That's why we have disabled toilets.

For those that can't use the male or the female bathroom.

 

 

The funny thing is, and I repeat again: no-one has ever actually provided any actual benefit to removing male and female toilets in favour of unisex ones.

 

This is the crux of this discussion: where's the benefit?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TheManFromPOST said:

i was out and about in my wheelchair when i came across a traffic light 

the red light changed to a green man walking

i felt so discriminated against

 

I identify as an Apache helicopter and have filed a discrimination claim on the basis of a lack of accessible landing pads in the Eastern Suburbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leonid said:

That's why we have disabled toilets.

For those that can't use the male or the female bathroom.

 

they are more-ish

 

when i was on crutches for a while after breaking my foot comprehensively, i was inclined to use them as there is room enough to comfortably prop the devices

 

advantages : much more room for anything at all, and almost invariably way cleaner than normal loos - i guess less traffic, and more sympathetic patrons, knowing other users might slip or otherwise suffer if the floor is dirty

 

ttbomk there is no requirement to be disabled to use them; they are my go to option at airports and larger public places for the above reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, scruffy1 said:

ttbomk there is no requirement to be disabled to use them; they are my go to option at airports and larger public places for the above reasons

Yep, I have used them a number of times ...cross my fingers on departure from them hoping I won't have kept an actual person on crutches or in a wheelchair waiting . << This thought stops me from always using them

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eveln said:

Yep, I have used them a number of times ...cross my fingers on departure from them hoping I won't have kept an actual person on crutches or in a wheelchair waiting . << This thought stops me from always using them

 

I've used them a lot.

 

Changing nappies for #1 and recently #2 is impossible if no parents' room is available - but possible in a disabled bathroom.

If the men's bathroom is being cleaned and I need to go, I'll go to the Disabled.

If I, as an able-bodied man can walk into the Disabled bathroom, I expect that the psychologically afflicted and the physically disabled can too - all the facilities required are available there.

 

Unisex bathrooms to replace male/female ones only appeal to ideologues. There is no actual benefit to them.

If you accept the lie that there are 52 genders, you're susceptible to the bullshit that follows that fairy tale.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

Unisex bathrooms to replace male/female ones only appeal to ideologues. There is no actual benefit to them.

 

- they save money. they free up area for other commercial purposes.  fewer total cubicles also saves time and money on maintenance and cleaning.

- they make it far easier for parents to accompany children of the opposite sex to the bathroom

- more inclusive for trans people

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

they save money. they free up area for other commercial purposes.  fewer total cubicles also saves time and money on maintenance and cleaning.


All not true.

 

54 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

they make it far easier for parents to accompany children of the opposite sex to the bathroom


That’s what disabled toilets are for if there are no parents rooms.

 

55 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

more inclusive for trans people


People that have mental issues are very included in the definition of Disabled.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Leonid said:

If you accept the lie that there are 52 genders, you're susceptible to the bullshit that follows that fairy tale.

Only 52 now?
You're the only person I know who actually believes that, in a very Boltian twist.

 

2 hours ago, Leonid said:

That’s what disabled toilets are for if there are no parents rooms.

People that have mental issues are very included in the definition of Disabled.

So much for 'we must keep toilets segregated because it's not fair to make target audiences wait'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leonid said:


All not true.

 


That’s what disabled toilets are for if there are no parents rooms.

 


People that have mental issues are very included in the definition of Disabled.
 

 

haha youre like a bigoted angry little baby.  Ben Shapiro without the kippah lol

 

heres the minimum toilet numbers for the UK's Code of Practice under Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Regulation 20, Sanitary conveniences

 

MWfbVEY.jpg

 

as you can see, the minimum number of cubicles does not double when genders are combined.  not even close.  here its a max 33% increase.

 

heres a toilet calculator for building code compliance in New Zealand.
 

the results for servicing 500 people in attendance at a grandstand

 

Option 1 - Unisex
Facilities    10
Disabled    2

 

Option 2 - Single Sex pans only

Pans    5
Disabled    1
Basins    3


Pans    4
Disabled    1
Basins    3


Option 3 - Single sex with pans and urinal for males

Pans    5
Disabled    1
Basins    3


Pans    2
Disabled    1
Urinals    3
Basins    3

 

as you can see, an increase from a combined total of 9 cubicles to 10 without urinals, or from 7 to 10 with urinals.  a max 43% increase.

 

you obviously need help understanding why the the above is the case. so consider this:

 

if we say that X is the probability of any person needing a cubicle at any one time, then X is a fraction between 0 and 1.

the chances of a second person needing a cubicle at exactly the same time is then X².

as you may remember from high school mathematics, when you square a fraction you get a smaller result.

and so it goes that for a given number of people the chances of them concurrently occupying all cubicles goes down exponentially with each additional cubicle.

 

oh, plus the reality that men add proportionately less to demand because they have larger bladders and hence pee less often, wear less restrictive clothes and can clean up faster, and typically dont need to change tampons etc.

 

 

Edited by @~thehung
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Nich... said:

Only 52 now?
You're the only person I know who actually believes that, in a very Boltian twist.

 

I apologise. It’s 58 as at 2014:

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users

 

30 minutes ago, Nich... said:

So much for 'we must keep toilets segregated because it's not fair to make target audiences wait'

 

Add the number of disabled people who need the disabled toilet, the number of trans as a percentage of the population.

You’ll find that 1 disabled cubicle to 20 cubicles combined in men’s and women’s toilets - is more than representative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, @~thehung said:

 

haha youre like a bigoted angry little baby.  Ben Shapiro without the kippah lol

 

No need to cry @@~thehung. You missed a tiny little bit in your analysis.

 

That tiny little bit is "the point".

 

Those building codes refer to three types of toilet:

- traditional separate blocks of male and female toilets

- male/female designated cubicle style toilets with their own wash hand basins

- un-designated (unisex) toilets with their own wash hand basins

 

In other words, you're just building a bunch of disabled toilets - which are by definition unisex because they're their own self-contained room. It's like your home toilet.

The regulations you linked do not refer to a shared-space unisex toilet where there are unisex cubicles/toilets with shared basins - a la what you have at the Argyle in Sydney.

 

That does not scale AT ALL in a shopping centre situation or anywhere where you have permanent foot traffic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

 

No need to cry @@~thehung. You missed a tiny little bit in your analysis.

 

That tiny little bit is "the point".

 

i think you'll find "the point" is demand for toilets. try to keep up.

 

it means that demand doesnt scale how you think it does.

 

a building is being designed to house a company with 20 men and 10 women employees.

 

they could opt for two smallish separate rooms with two sets of utilities servicing 2 toilets in each, plus a urinal in one.

 

or, they could opt for a significantly larger single room with a total area possibly even less than the two separate rooms combined (less space lost to outer walls and utilities) containing just 3 toilets, in more luxurious cubicles.

 

the unisex bathroom option is cheaper, can be placed with equal convenience to both genders, and can cope with another 10-15 employees comfortably.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×