Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,101 Year: 5,358/9,624 Month: 383/323 Week: 23/204 Day: 23/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This Bathroom Law Confusion
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 61 of 166 (782965)
05-01-2016 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by anglagard
05-01-2016 11:53 AM


Re: One Plausible Solution
Perhaps all public restrooms should be mandated to consist of the following:
One working toilet
One working sink
Toilet paper
A hand drier or paper product for drying hands
A waste basket
A lidded depository for hygiene products
A lockable door
All unisex and all within a 100% enclosed space
Instead of mandating that this replace all current public facilities, how about if just one or two were mandated to be added to the existing facilities, say carved out between the men's and the women's, for anyone who doesn't want to be subjected to the public situation for whatever reason. One would probably be enough in many places, two or three where traffic is higher.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2016 11:53 AM anglagard has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


(3)
Message 62 of 166 (782967)
05-01-2016 1:26 PM


Permit me to tell about my personal experience in this issue. Hopefully, someone can pick something away from it.
There once was a man. A beautiful man at that. He was a man's man. After spending 5-6 years in Iraq as a soldier, he came back to the states and was honorably discharged.
He and I met at an lgbt convention. After we danced, we talked to each other and it turned out he came from the same city I was living at the time. I asked for his number.
After we came back from the convention, I started calling him and asked him out. We began dating.
I've never been one who sleeps around. Neither was he. We dated for a month or so before we started cuddling with each other.
Ok, this next part is closer to rated R, so if you're underaged, please stop reading.
After having dated for closer to 2 months, we decided that we were both ready to make love. He took off his clothes and he was the most beautiful man I had ever seen in my life. Perfect muscular pecks, perfect 6 packs stomach, very muscular biceps, and a perfect smile. He showed me some scars he had acquired from the war.
We began making love.
This next part is rated X, so those under 30 stop reading now.
There was always something dissatisfying about making love with him. A little before a year later, I was no longer able to keep my erection long enough for penetration.
I began to ask myself am I turning straight now? This is probably the most beautiful man I had ever dated and there I was not being able to perform. He certainly noticed that I stopped penetrating him.
On Halloween, we had arranged to go out. When I went to his apartment to pick him up, I saw that he had a dress and a wig on. Wow, that's a cool costume, I said. I also commented you seem pretty natural with that costume.
The following night, I swung by to pick him up again and he was wearing another female costume. I commented you're really into this Halloween thing.
When we were at a restaurant, he finally said to me this is how I am. It was then that a light bulb went off in my head.
We continued to date for several months after. And I started noticing she was getting thinner and thinner. One day, I asked her you've been looking pale what's wrong? Turned out she doesn't eat or drink all day everyday until she gets home in the evening. Why? So she wouldn't have to use the bathroom during the day.
She never had surgery. Still fully anatomically male. She told me that she doesn't want to lose her sex drive, and that's what happens after surgery.
Our relationship only lasted a few months after that before we shook hands and moved on.
Nowadays, she is a software engineer at a software company downtown. She tells me they are very accommodating to her.
Those who think trans people are just being trans so they can be perverts, please understand that it goes beyond physical appearance. Remember the bit when I described the perfect male body I was seeing and how I couldn't maintain an erection? This was long before she came out to me as a trans. This experience alone convinced me that human sexuality transcends physical appearance.
I now have a long term boyfriend. We've been together for almost 4 years. I don't love him just because he has a male body. It goes much beyond that. I can't fully explain it. Just know that appearance isn't everything.

If you say the word "gullible" slowly, it sounds like oranges. Go ahead and try it.

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1217 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 63 of 166 (782979)
05-01-2016 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
04-30-2016 8:59 PM


Re: Reality of Politicians
I apologize for ranting only about conservatives.
The liberals are just as bad.
I am sure we can find equally stupid laws from the liberal side.
==== Warning more ranting ====
Why do we have make a law about everything? You just create reasons for lawyers to split hairs. Then you have to go back and "fix" your law. When the legislature changes party, they feel obligated to change the law again.
So NC state government has now overruled any accommodation that local schools, etc. have come up with to solve their own situation.
Did the authors of this law actually think it through? Who gets to check what's in a patron's pants and on the birth certificate? Talk about government intrusion!
Do we have to have bathroom licenses now? Coming next are the sit-ins as protest and civil disobedience. It will be hard to give good television interviews with the flushing and running water noises.
This may be the NC push to get what all parents want - a single use / family bathroom everywhere where we can take our opposite gender child or children of both genders. With a changing table. And short toilets. And coat hooks.
Edited by 14174dm, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 04-30-2016 8:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 166 (782987)
05-02-2016 4:11 AM


I guess I could take the most politically incorrect position and argue that there should be laws against cross-dressing in public. If you can't dress like the opposite biological sex then you also could use the restroom of your biological sex and there would be no problem. Nobody would be freaked out, worried about molesters posing as women, objecting to biological men in women's dress in the women's room and so on and so forth.
Problem solved.

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2016 5:01 AM Faith has replied
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 05-03-2016 8:47 AM Faith has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 166 (782988)
05-02-2016 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
05-02-2016 4:11 AM


I'm waiting, Faith
What right have you lost by trans people being allowed to pee in peace?
And once you answer that, go the next step:
What right have you lost by trans people being protected by anti-discrimination laws?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 4:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 8:58 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 66 of 166 (782991)
05-02-2016 8:37 AM


No more M/F bathrooms
Why don't we just get rid of Male and Female bathrooms already?
What's wrong with people that can't handle such a thing?
When I was in university (Toronto, Canada), I lived in a dorm that had males and females.
The bathroom was open to all.
No male bathroom, no female bathroom.
Everyone (50+ people on my floor) had access to the same 8 stalls in the same location.
College kids.
There was no sex in the bathrooms.
There was no trouble.
If there's an issue with people getting molested.. then make a law against molesting people.
Oh, is there one already? Then enforce it.
Anything beyond that is silly.
Silly things are generally backed by people who either don't understand, or they have another reason.

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 9:05 AM Stile has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 166 (782992)
05-02-2016 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rrhain
05-02-2016 5:01 AM


Waiting?
I haven't said anything about losing any rights. If you've read my posts you should see that I don't object to making accommodations to transgender people because I don't see any problem to come from doing that. I really have no idea why you've been in such a snit. (I did stop reading through all your posts because of that) But I'm also responding to those who do feel there is a problem. I think it's mostly not recognizing the actuality that's involved, but it's such a strongly held position I also wonder if I'm missing something. I may very well be.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2016 5:01 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 10:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 68 of 166 (782993)
05-02-2016 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Stile
05-02-2016 8:37 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
I think mixing the sexes in bathrooms is barbaric. Families don't allow that. Sisters together, brothers together but not the two sexes together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Stile, posted 05-02-2016 8:37 AM Stile has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 05-02-2016 9:20 AM Faith has replied
 Message 111 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 10:29 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 69 of 166 (782994)
05-02-2016 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
05-02-2016 9:05 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith writes:
I think mixing the sexes in bathrooms is barbaric. Families don't allow that. Sisters together, brothers together but not the two sexes together.
That would depend on the family, would it not?
In addition the example you are responding to pointed out that there were individual stalls in the bathroom in question.
What possible objections could there be in that situation? How is that different than men and women both using the same halls or drinking fountain or mirror?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 9:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 10:21 AM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 166 (782998)
05-02-2016 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
05-02-2016 9:20 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
....deleted.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 05-02-2016 9:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 05-02-2016 10:42 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 71 of 166 (783001)
05-02-2016 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
05-02-2016 10:21 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith writes:
jar writes:
What possible objections could there be in that situation? How is that different than men and women both using the same halls or drinking fountain or mirror?
If you don't see a difference, far be it from me to try to make such an obvious point when you're only going to deny it.
But it might help us understand what it is that bothers you and maybe even others. If you never explain what it is that is the issue then how can you ever expect to convince anyone your position has merit?
The comparison I presented seems very apt.
In the bathroom being discussed the toilets are in individual stalls and so private.
How is a mirror on the wall in a bathroom different than a mirror on the wall in a hall?
How is a faucet in the bathroom different than a faucet out back or a water fountain in the hall?
How is walking in a hall different than walking in the public areas of the bathroom in question?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 10:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 11:03 AM jar has replied
 Message 77 by 14174dm, posted 05-02-2016 11:55 AM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 72 of 166 (783003)
05-02-2016 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
05-02-2016 10:42 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Jar, this is something that I believe all cultures have recognized forever, but if not certainly the western cultures. You shouldn't have to raise such a question.
Stalls provide some privacy but the walls are not all that sturdy and usually allow visibility under and over to anyone caring to check it out. But perhaps the co-ed version provides more privacy? If so, why not have separate bathrooms as usual since privacy clearly matters.
Are there urinals in this co-ed bathroom? If not, that says something about why we don't mix the sexes in itself. Privacy IS important, why push the envelope?
In the women's restroom in the dorm when I was at university women stood at the sinks bare from the waist up and washed themselves. Are they going to do that in a co-ed bathroom? If not, doesn't that also say something about why we don't mix the sexes?
Are there showers in this bathroom? In the one I mentioned the partitions, again, like the usual toilet stalls, didn't provide privacy to the extent of keeping someone from checking out the neighboring shower if desired, and there were no doors on them, just a thin curtain. If there is more privacy than that in the co-ed situation, again that says something about the need for privacy and why not have the traditional separate bathrooms in that case?
What is accomplished by forcing the sexes to be together if you have to make an effort to keep them apart even in that situation, and if no effort is made, is it really the case that you can watch someone else shower, women wash themselves at the sinks in the view of everybody, urinals are used in the view of everybody? If so, do you see no problem with that? If not, if privacy about these things matters, why not just have the usual separate bathrooms where privacy is easier to protect?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 05-02-2016 10:42 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 05-02-2016 11:20 AM Faith has replied
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2016 12:55 PM Faith has replied
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 05-02-2016 2:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 114 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2016 10:39 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 73 of 166 (783006)
05-02-2016 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
05-02-2016 11:03 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith writes:
What is accomplished by forcing the sexes to be together if you have to make an effort to keep them apart even in that situation, and if no effort is made, is it really the case that you can watch someone else shower, women wash themselves at the sinks in the view of everybody, urinals are used in the view of everybody? If so, do you see no problem with that? If not, if privacy about these things matters, why not just have the usual separate bathrooms where privacy is easier to protect?
I see no problems there. If someone is washing at a sink naked then I say it's fine to watch them wash at the sink naked. Get serious.
If they (as is usually the case when washing at a sink) are clothed then no big deal.
If there is a way to peak under or over a stall to see who is next door I see no difference whether it is a same or different sex peeker. A pecker-peeker is little different than a non-pecker-peeker.
If there are shower curtains then there is privacy. Any objection would be the same as above.
Sorry Faith but no, I do not see the problem.
Also, having grown up in a house with a passel of kids if you were in the shower and someone of either sex really, really, really needed to go all that was needed was a verbal admonishment not to peek.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 11:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 11:24 AM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 166 (783007)
05-02-2016 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
05-02-2016 11:20 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
If you have to require no peeking in any case WHY HAVE CO-ED BATHROOMS AT ALL? Obviously it is recognized that privacy is desired.
As I said the women were BARE from the waist up, that's how you wash yourself, you don't wash yourself with clothes on. And that's OK with you? Good grief. Let me off this planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 05-02-2016 11:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 05-02-2016 11:31 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 75 of 166 (783008)
05-02-2016 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-02-2016 11:24 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith writes:
As I said the women were BARE from the waist up, that's how you wash yourself, you don't wash yourself with clothes on. And that's OK with you? Good grief. Let me off this planet.
Yup, I have absolutely no problem with that.
If women are bare from the waist up washing at a sink in a multi-use bathroom then they have no expectation of privacy.
Men seldom wash at a sink bare from the waist up except in TV commercials.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 11:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 11:32 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024