Jump to content
Leonid

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

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

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.

 

Except that particular option is EXACTLY the one missing in your post.

 

35 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

 

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

 

 

Sorry mate. It isn't.

 

I just checked the Australian Sanitary Facilities calculator. You know... the one that actually lists number of cubicles, urinals and wash basins by gender, regardless of how you configure your bathroom.

 

Feel absolutely free to play with it. Reduce count of men to 0 and increase women by a factor of 2.

 

You just get more women's facilities.

 

---

 

Let me explain to you how this works... lets blow your mind.

 

Lets say you have 10,000 women in one place. They need 25 cubicles. Double that. How many cubicles do you need now?

It's 50. The ratios don't change. Maybe it's a bit less if you take into account acceptable queuing time.

 

Now add 10,000 men. They need 15 cubicles and 15 urinals. Double that. How many cubicles and urinals do you need now?

It's 30 and 30. The ratios don't change. Maybe it's a bit less if you take into account acceptable queuing time.

 

What you're saying is that if you put women and men in the same public bathroom, the ratios change, beyond acceptable queuing time changes? How?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


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

The ratios don't change.

9 hours ago, @~thehung said:

 MWfbVEY.jpg

 

 

The UK seems to think they change. With 5 women you need 5 toilets and with 20 times as many you need 5 times the toilets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

 

The UK seems to think they change. With 5 women you need 5 toilets and with 20 times as many you need 5 times the toilets. 

 

Err no.

 

If you have 80 employees that are either female or unisex you need 5 toilets and 5 basins in a unisex toilet.

 

If you have 80 employees of who are absolutely fucking normal people without any mental disabilities, with a 40 female:40 male ratio you need 5 toilets and 5 washbasins.

 

Read your table.

 

It’s based on employee numbers and gender splits. You save no space whatsoever - you just make everyone uncomfortable for no fucken reason whatsoever and remove the convenience of urinals for men which increases cubicle waiting time for women.

 

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have 100 employees. I have 50 male and 50 female because I'm amazing and managed to find a truly 50/50 split,but enough about me. 

 

according to that table I currently need 3 toilets for women (maybe 4 if I hire one more) 3 for men and 2 urinals with appropriate hand basinage. But if they are unisex I can do the whole lot with 5 stalls and no urinals. I don't need a separate room for the cubicles either. 

 

Tell me what I'm missing. 

Share this post


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

If you have 80 employees that are either female or unisex

 

If you have 80 employees of who are absolutely fucking normal people without any mental disabilities, with a 40 female:40 male ratio

Err...

Share this post


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

So I have 100 employees. I have 50 male and 50 female because I'm amazing and managed to find a truly 50/50 split,but enough about me. 

 

according to that table I currently need 3 toilets for women (maybe 4 if I hire one more) 3 for men and 2 urinals with appropriate hand basinage. But if they are unisex I can do the whole lot with 5 stalls and no urinals. I don't need a separate room for the cubicles either. 

 

Tell me what I'm missing. 


If the game is to reduce cubicle count by 1 why not hire just men?


Let’s face it - women spend more time in the bathroom, so just hiring men is both saving space and increasing productivity.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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


If the game is to reduce cubicle count by 1 why not hire just men?


Let’s face it - women spend more time in the bathroom, so just hiring men is both saving space and increasing productivity.

 

One cubicle in this scenario. Also one less bathroom area in many cases. One less basin. Probably a couple less hand dryers. 

 

If you're running a shopping mall then you can spread that out further. Besides the cubicle saving thing is really a side benefit. I'm just calling bullshit on your math about it being the same. 😉

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

One cubicle in this scenario. Also one less bathroom area in many cases. One less basin. Probably a couple less hand dryers. 


Not quite. Your scenario presupposes known quantities of men and women. How does that work in public areas?

7 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

If you're running a shopping mall then you can spread that out further. Besides the cubicle saving thing is really a side benefit. I'm just calling bullshit on your math about it being the same. 😉


You can call bullshit all you want - but the reality is that it’s actually determined via an Aussie code which specifies what you need. And it’s gender specific 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

One cubicle in this scenario. Also one less bathroom area in many cases.

 


When you have 10000 men and 10000 women in a shopping centre and then you remove the gendered normal bathrooms to create a unisex one to save on one cubicle but then your patronage goes up by 1 person and you have to build another cubicle 🙂

 

 

Share this post


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

Except that particular option is EXACTLY the one missing in your post.

 

seriously...

 

i showed how you many toilets are needed to cope with demand.  generally speaking, 3 unisex toilets provide for 50 people comparably to 4 toilets + 1 urinal in gendered bathrooms.  the red tape of how they are housed is irrelevant to how much pooing and peeing needs processing per head.

 

what i said about the way demand scales was this: "for a given number of people the chances of them concurrently occupying all cubicles goes down exponentially with each additional cubicle."

 

which is why its no surprise, as per the Australian Sanitary Facilities calculator :-

 

5 men, 5 women = 1 toilet each = 2 separate toilets        OR      1 unisex toilet

10 men, 10 women = 1 toilet each = 2 separate toilets    OR     1 unisex toilet

 

a translation for the slow of wit:

 

in this instance,

 

- 2x the number of people, 1x the number of toilets.

 

tWHKtRF.jpg

 

- 1 unisex toilet replaces 2

 

tWHKtRF.jpg

 

"NOTE:  In calculating the number of facilities to be provided...an accessible unisex facility required for people with a disability may be counted once for each sex...This concession means that for each wash basin and closet pan counted above, you may deduct one for each accessible unisex facility provided."
 

we are not talking about what is, but what could be — what size unisex toilet could cope with demand.  you seem to have lost sight of that.  we do not have adequate provisions for building modern multiple cubicle unisex toilets in this country.  as such, our current code doesnt provide for equivalent toilet numbers to replace urinals.  obviously, were modern multiple cubicle unisex toilets to be adopted here, provisions for them would need to be amended to the code.  thats what we are talking about.  and one argument for doing so, as i have proven over and over again, is they can be cheaper and take up less space.

 

is there no limit to how far you will contort your cognitive dissonance to preserve your prejudices?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

i showed how you many toilets are needed to cope with demand.  generally speaking, 3 unisex toilets provide for 50 people comparably to 4 toilets + 1 urinal in gendered bathrooms. 


oh you poor son of a bitch. You have basic comprehension problems 🙂

 

3 unisex toilets provide for 50 people. But if it’s 51 people, it’s 4 toilets.

 

Conversely 70 people can use 4 gendered toilets if you split 25 women and 45 men.

 

And it just keeps leapfrogging.

 

You don’t win ANYTHING with gendered toilets because the breakpoints where you think you win are so imperceptible they’re wiped out by every single other thing you give up and the fact that IN AUSTRALIA TOILET COUNTS ARE BASED ON NUMBERS OF MEN AND WOMEN, IN WHATEVER CONFIG YOU WANT THE TOILET.

 

There remains absolutely no benefit to any unisex public toilets. You win absolutely nothing. 🙂

9 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

is there no limit to how far you will contort your cognitive dissonance to preserve your prejudices?


I’ll do you a deal. I’ll answer this question once you provide a single benefit of replacing male and female toilets with a unisex one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me see if I can penetrate that brain of yours with a little reality.

 

A gender neutral bathroom may save you one cubicle. But it does not get rid of urinals which cut down waiting times for women.

 

Because these cubicles are unisex, they’re no longer cubicles. They’re enclosed private bathrooms within a larger room with a shared set of basins. Because they’re enclosed bathrooms, they require their own basins as well (women), their own AC/ventilation, their own sanitary bins and need to be substantially larger than cubicles (regulations). You need 1.2m of space between the front edge of the toilet and the door - much larger than what you’d get in a cubicle.

 

Then there’s cleaning. If the public unisex toilet has urinals to reduce queues, then you can’t send a female cleaner. Whatever cleaner you send into a busy unisex bathroom is going to close that bathroom for everyone.

 

There’s just no win here. Losing one cubicle Out of 10 in favour 9 much larger toilets is not a win.

 

 

Share this post


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


Not quite. Your scenario presupposes known quantities of men and women. How does that work in public areas?

 

You have to allow for certain numbers of males and females. Say you average 2000 people a day in your shopping centre and one day it's 60/40 women but occasionally it gets to mothers day and you get a 30/70 with men dominating. With unisex toilets you only have to know the total number I stead of the split. So, to my kind, it works better. Quite a bit better, really.

 

3 hours ago, Leonid said:

You can call bullshit all you want - but the reality is that it’s actually determined via an Aussie code which specifies what you need. And it’s gender specific 🙂

 

For now it is. That would probably have to have changes. There may be ways of getting around it. Maybe a larger shopping centre has a couple of gendered bathrooms and the rest as unisex. I don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

You have to allow for certain numbers of males and females. Say you average 2000 people a day in your shopping centre and one day it's 60/40 women but occasionally it gets to mothers day and you get a 30/70 with men dominating. With unisex toilets you only have to know the total number I stead of the split. So, to my kind, it works better. Quite a bit better, really.


Except that because women take 2.5 x longer in the toilet, you’ve basically just fucked yourself :)

53 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

For now it is. That would probably have to have changes. There may be ways of getting around it. Maybe a larger shopping centre has a couple of gendered bathrooms and the rest as unisex. I don't know. 


Or here’s an amazing thought.

Take total capacity, add 20% margin and assume a 50% split between the sexes.

 

All problems solved at the cost of one additional cubicle over a unisex bathroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a leaf from Sydney's road system.

Have the mens/ladies blocks built in a row with a movable partition in the middle.

The cubicle doors are controlled such that they can only be occupied from outer to inner in order for each sex.

The movable partition can shift along if one set of dunnies becomes full, borrowing from the other sex, then shift back towards the middle as cubicles are freed up again.

Share this post


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

Not quite. Your scenario presupposes known quantities of men and women. How does that work in public areas?

Doesn't that work in favour of a single resource pool to allocate from, rather than two smaller discrete ones? 🤷‍♀️

 

5 hours ago, Leonid said:


You can call bullshit all you want - but the reality is that it’s actually determined via an Aussie code which specifies what you need. And it’s gender specific 🙂

'Hey guys you can argue against slavery all you want, but it's legal and I don't see any laws on the books about it being different so what could we possibly do to change things' 🤦‍♀️

 

3 hours ago, Leonid said:

3 unisex toilets provide for 50 people. But if it’s 51 people, it’s 4 toilets.

I'm confused why this point keeps being made as if it's not universal.  If an extra customer walks into a building with 10,000 other customers, they're not going to get shut down until they build another toilet.  But why is this a scenario that only works for unisex toilets and not seggregated toilets?

Also, why is this even an issue for a shopping centre?  The toilets are typically out of the way down access corridors.  There's not a lot else to be using the space back there if a few m^3 are saved. 

 

3 hours ago, Leonid said:

You don’t win ANYTHING with gendered toilets because the breakpoints where you think you win are so imperceptible they’re wiped out by every single other thing you give up and the fact that IN AUSTRALIA TOILET COUNTS ARE BASED ON NUMBERS OF MEN AND WOMEN, IN WHATEVER CONFIG YOU WANT THE TOILET.

 

There remains absolutely no benefit to any unisex public toilets. You win absolutely nothing. 🙂


I’ll do you a deal. I’ll answer this question once you provide a single benefit of replacing male and female toilets with a unisex one.

If I go into a small venue and they have a single toilet stall and single basin, is that a unisex toilet, a male toilet, or a female toilet?  And if it's the former, who do I call to get them shut down for violating very clear building standards?

 

 

Anyway, I'm glad Atomic needs a separate safe space - that is not just Atomic as a whole - to have a shitposting thread.

Share this post


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

Because these cubicles are unisex, they’re no longer cubicles. They’re enclosed private bathrooms within a larger room with a shared set of basins. Because they’re enclosed bathrooms, they require their own basins as well (women), their own AC/ventilation, their own sanitary bins and need to be substantially larger than cubicles (regulations). You need 1.2m of space between the front edge of the toilet and the door - much larger than what you’d get in a cubicle.

 

i skipped your last post because you failed to provide the semblance of a pertinent or logical response.  instead, its fingers in ears lalalala time from you.

 

but the quote above is amazing to me.  yes, they can be cubicles.  and the 1.2m space is straight out of your inner fantasy world.  how can you not understand this?

 

i think you havent used an actual multiple cubicle unisex bathroom in your life.  you cant even conceive of it, apparently. 🤣 the dissonance is strong

 

 

2 hours ago, Rybags said:

Take a leaf from Sydney's road system.

Have the mens/ladies blocks built in a row with a movable partition in the middle.

The cubicle doors are controlled such that they can only be occupied from outer to inner in order for each sex.

The movable partition can shift along if one set of dunnies becomes full, borrowing from the other sex, then shift back towards the middle as cubicles are freed up again.

 

not exactly what youre saying, but there are designs in a similar vein.

wq6nvYG.jpg

 

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


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

Doesn't that work in favour of a single resource pool to allocate from, rather than two smaller discrete ones? 


Typically yes. But the issue was the fact that leapfrogging small numbers revealed absolutely no tangible benefit over the long term with 1 small cubicle being replaced with one floor-to-ceiling toilet on an at best (n-1) basis.

9 hours ago, Nich... said:

Hey guys you can argue against slavery all you want, but it's legal and I don't see any laws on the books about it being different so what could we possibly do to change things' 


Cute but not accurate. The Aussie code doesn’t split bathrooms. It merely states what you need to do to accommodate a certain number of men and/or women. Whether you build a unisex bathroom or gendered bathrooms is irrelevant - the count of facilities in those bathrooms is the same..

9 hours ago, Nich... said:

I'm confused


I can see that. Perhaps if you read further down you might understand

9 hours ago, Nich... said:

If I go into a small venue and they have a single toilet stall and single basin, is that a unisex toilet, a male toilet, or a female toilet?


That’s the same toilet you’ve got in your house. Any of the (only) two sexes can use it but at no time is the space shared.

 

IE it’s a private bathroom in a public venue.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, @~thehung said:

but the quote above is amazing to me.  yes, they can be cubicles.  and the 1.2m space is straight out of your inner fantasy world.  how can you not understand this?


Because it’s straight out of building codes chump.

 

8 hours ago, @~thehung said:

not exactly what youre saying, but there are designs in a similar vein.

 

So ~5 urinals for men, 5 shared toilet cubicles and 4 dedicated to women only.

 

2 basins either side, women can’t use the men’s basins because of urinals and men can use the women’s basins.

 

 

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


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

That’s the same toilet you’ve got in your house. Any of the (only) two sexes can use it but at no time is the space shared.

 

IE it’s a private bathroom in a public venue.

a) this feels like a very belaboured point to push, given your arguments on libtertarianism and universals vs exclusions in the other thread

b) the only bathrooms I've seen that are shared spaces are urinals.  All stalls are private spaces.

Share this post


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

a) this feels like a very belaboured point to push, given your arguments on libtertarianism and universals vs exclusions in the other thread

 

Because I make the distinction between publish bathrooms with shared cubicles like @@~thehung's link, vs a row of enclosed private toilets with a maybe-yes-maybe-not attached area for joint wash-basins?

15 minutes ago, Nich... said:

 b) the only bathrooms I've seen that are shared spaces are urinals.  All stalls are private spaces.

 

A stall as in a floor to ceiling thing? Or a cubicle?

Share this post


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

A stall as in a floor to ceiling thing? Or a cubicle?

I remember trying to time breaks to be able to go to the bathroom and find a free toilet, without my manager getting upset that I took an unallocated break.

I feel like my manager may've gotten more upset if I just went in my cubicle, despite it being more time efficient.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nich... said:

I remember trying to time breaks to be able to go to the bathroom and find a free toilet, without my manager getting upset that I took an unallocated break.

I feel like my manager may've gotten more upset if I just went in my cubicle, despite it being more time efficient.


Sounds like a shitty workplace. You should dump it.

Share this post


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

A stall as in a floor to ceiling thing? Or a cubicle?

A stall to me is like an area where horses are stalled in a stable ... they're mostly not floor to ceiling thing.  A cubicle is a partitioned section of a larger room . From floor up to about average head height ( five feet maybe ).

So, I figure in the supposedly five star establishment I need to use, the women folk are treated slightly worse than horses re the whole privacy thing whilst enthroned.

No idea what the setup for the blokes loos is like

Share this post


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

×