Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Enhanced privacy: a solution to the bathroom debate?

I have seen bathrooms at a Starbucks in Seattle which had all toilets with doors all the way to the ground from top to bottom. There were no male urinals, The restroom was coeducational, but all the stalls had enhanced privacy. This might be the answer to the bathroom issue.

22 comments:

William Brown said...

Just treating the symptoms. You're still essentially sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex.

Ilíon said...

It's not even treating the symptom ... it's just retreating from the anti-civilizational aggressors, in anticipation of your next retreat.

The *ONLY* reason there is a “bathroom issue” is because leftists have invented yet another “issue” to use as a weapon in their ongoing-and-never-ending war to destroy Western civilization.

We cannot return our civilization to sanity -- we cannot *save* or civilization -- by giving way to insanity.

B. Prokop said...

Almost 40 years ago in a restaurant at an Austrian ski resort, I went into a unisex restroom with full privacy stalls and one set of sinks. This was long, long before "gender politics" was ever dreamed of. My opinion at the time was this was done purely for space reasons.

Ilíon said...

This isn't 40 years ago in Austria.

"My opinion at the time was this was done purely for space reasons."

It's a fact of the matter that devoting even twice as much space to the women's facilities as to the men's will still often be "not enough". At public events, women are *always* invading the men's restrooms ... because sexism or some such bullshit rationales.

So, a combined unisex restroom such as you witnessed is/was an attempt to get around that particular problem ... by making *all* the facilities into women's facilities.

Ilíon said...

MEANWHILE -- your friendly neighborhood rapist thanks you for making his job easier.

With sex-segregated facilities, (other than the rare instances of confusion (*)) we *always* know that a man entering the women's room is up to no good.


(*) for example, misunderstanding the signage, or stepping this direction when he meant to step that, and which is always followed by extreme mortification on the erring man's part.

B. Prokop said...

Hah! At another restaurant also in Austria, I needed to use the restroom. Imagine my consternation when the doors to the Men's and Women's rooms were not the usual "H" for men (Herren) and "D" for women (Damen), but were in some local dialect. One was marked with a "D" and the other a "B". Not being sure which was which, I waited for someone else to enter so I'd know where to go. (Turns out that the men's room was the "D" door.)

And there's the case of a psychiatrist's office here in Maryland, at which the restrooms were labeled "Envious" and "Envied"!

Ilíon said...

I don't recall the circumstance, but I do recall that there was at least one time in my life where I waited for someone else to either come out or go in so that I could know which was which.

"And there's the case of a psychiatrist's office here in Maryland, at which the restrooms were labeled "Envious" and "Envied"!"

Now that would be funny to watch.

Ilíon said...

With sex-segregated facilities, if a man needs to adjust his clothing, he doesn't need to tie up a stall while doing so; he can simply unzip and (if the adjustment goes that far) lower his trousers in the common area, make the adjustment, zip up, and walk back out. With unisex facilities, his *only* option is to go into a stall, thereby preventing its primary use for some amount of time.

======
BUT, the main thing about Victor's proposed cultural retreat in the face of this most recent instance of leftist-subsidized insanity is that the insanity isn't about restrooms, it's about forcing normal people to pretend to agree that mentally-ill men with castration fetishes are identical to women.

Ilíon said...

... the *other* sexual perverts, the ones whom Victor's proposal attempts to defang, are just along for the ride.

steve said...

The trans lobby isn't about accommodation. Just the opposite. They want to see and be seen, to prove that gender binaries are arbitrary social constructs. A trans man should be able to use the men's restroom because he's a real man (even though he's biologically female). And vice versa. These compromises fail to get inside the trans ideology.

William said...

We can rather easily separate the (mostly foolish) reasons for a design change of this type from the design change itself, which is rather neutral except for cost and consequences.

Normal doors on a fully enclosed stall is the normal solution used in trains, airplanes and private homes, which should work well long as it is not abused, but of course it will be.

It also places an unneeded cost burden on those who pay for remodeling.

SteveK said...

The restroom was coeducational, but all the stalls had enhanced privacy.

So moving the "lock on the door" from the entrance of the bathroom to the stall solves the problem? If the laws that separated the sexes at the entrance didn't stop the progressives, the laws at the stall door won't either. I can hear the chants now...

"Mr. Business Owner, tear down this stall"

SteveK said...

Evidence that I'm correct:

The school board, in Gloucester, a rural part of Virginia on the Chesapeake Bay, said Grimm could use a unisex bathroom, but he said that only worsened his anguish of being transgender. Barred from using the boys' restroom, he avoided using the restrooms at the school entirely and developed urinary tract infections, according to court documents.

Private (unisex) stalls won't remove the 'worsening anguish' of being *barred* from sharing it publicly. That's the (twisted) logic here.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/va-appeals-court-won-t-re-hear-transgender-bathroom-access-n583446

SteveK said...

...it's about forcing normal people to pretend to agree that mentally-ill men with castration fetishes are identical to women

Yup. We don't legally reduce the age of anyone who undergoes a facelift either. These people look and feel younger and probably identify as being 10-20 years younger. The logic is the same so maybe this insanity is the next frontier for our narcissistic society.

Victor Reppert said...

But, how do you deal with cases of people who have one sex on their birth certificate, but for
genuine medical reasons, were medically reassigned. My wife and I knew someone like that. In other words, a real hermaphrodite. He became a fully heterosexual male, even though he came out in a pink blanket. There are some like this, as opposed to a Caitlyn Jenner, who just came to feel like a woman. According to the laws in some states, he has to use the ladies room because that's what's on his birth certificate. He dresses and looks like a man, so much that my wife only later told me what had happened with him. With him in the ladies' room, I am afraid women might be uncomfortable.

Legion of Logic said...

"But, how do you deal with cases of people who have one sex on their birth certificate, but for
genuine medical reasons, were medically reassigned."

If color blind people demanded that society eliminate those colors they had trouble seeing, would we do it, or would we tell them "Sorry but we can't base society off a tiny minority of people who have a problem."

Now then, a compassionate society would accommodate people with problems (wheelchair ramp as a simple example). The problem here is that the trans movement is demanding that we redefine male and female for them. Progressive institutions are punishing people who don't agree.

A man with gender dysphoria is a man with gender dysphoria, not a woman. Otherwise, we could simply say that all a woman is, is a man with gender dysphoria. That's obviously not the case.

Accommodate as much as is reasonable, yes. Redefine biology and society, no. Tolerate punishment of people who don't agree that Jenner is a woman, absolutely no way.

Gyan said...

"According to the laws in some states, he has to use the ladies room because that's what's on his birth certificate."

And why do these law came to exist?

steve said...

I'd add that the trans lobby doesn't stop with public restrooms. It demands access to locker rooms. Plus intramural sports and pro sports.

Ilíon said...

VR: "According to the laws in some states, he has to use the ladies room because that's what's on his birth certificate."

Gyan: "And why do these law came to exist?"

Well, one thing we can know for sure -- it's simple bigotry; it has nothing at all to do with protecting women from sexually perverted and predatory men.

==========

VR: "But, how do you deal with cases of people who have one sex on their birth certificate, but for
genuine medical reasons, were medically reassigned. My wife and I knew someone like that. In other words, a real hermaphrodite. He became a fully heterosexual male, even though he came out in a pink blanket. There are some like this, as opposed to a Caitlyn Jenner, who just came to feel like a woman. According to the laws in some states, he has to use the ladies room because that's what's on his birth certificate. He dresses and looks like a man, so much that my wife only later told me what had happened with him. With him in the ladies' room, I am afraid women might be uncomfortable.
"

You know, sometimes I really can't help but wonder whether you even *think* about the meaning of what you write when you're trying to find a way to surrender "gracefully" to the latest leftist absurdity.

VR: "But, how do you deal with cases of people who have one sex on their birth certificate, but for
genuine medical reasons, were medically reassigned. My wife and I knew someone like that. In other words, a real hermaphrodite. He became a fully heterosexual male, even though he came out in a pink blanket.
"

First, you trot out a red-herring, which has no more relevance to the leftists' current battle to force everyone to pretend that Bruce Jenner is a woman, and that he has a "right" to go into the women's restroom, than that one woman who may well die if she carries her baby to term has to do with the abortion "debate". By the way, leftists can state the truth about ol' Bruce, when they want to (see this comedian's routine 2:35 YouTube video -- "You most certainly are not a traditional girl")

VR: "According to the laws in some states, he has to use the ladies room because that's what's on his birth certificate. He dresses and looks like a man, so much that ..."

Second, you ignore at least three facts:
1) If he is indistinguishable from a biologically normal man, no one will even think to question his use of the men's room -- it's not like you have to present your birth certificate to gain admittance.
2) He can get the sex recorded on his birth certificate changed.
3) Women are *constantly* flooding into the men's restrooms when the line is "too long" for the women's restrooms, and everyone just accepts it as their right, the poor dears.

The "bathroom debate" isn't about keeping women out of the men's restroom; it's about forcing everyone to pretend that mentally-ill men with castration fetishes are equivalent to women; it's about destroying both femininity and masculinity.

VR: "... With him in the ladies' room, I am afraid women might be uncomfortable."

So, *because* we reasonably expect that women will object to the rare "real hermaphrodite" who "dresses and looks like a man" using women's restrooms and changing rooms, *therefore* we must force women to accept physically normal (albeit mentally-ill) men using women's restrooms and changing rooms?

As I asked above, do you even think about what you write?

Victor Reppert said...

I am fully aware that what I have laid out here will NOT satisfy the hard left.

oozzielionel said...

How about the poor urban planners who must now change all the building codes that specify how many fixtures are required in each type of restroom? Now you can no longer count on the plumbing of the room matching the biological plumbing of the users?

Ilíon said...

VR: "I am fully aware that what I have laid out here will NOT satisfy the hard left."

No one else sees this leftist made-up "problem" as a problem.