Tampons for men's bathrooms at Brown University, USA

frostyjacks

Logically, gents should use the gents, and ladies use the ladies. Nothing against people who struggle with their identity, but it really is that simple.

Giacomo McGubbin

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They are. I ran it by all the girls in my office and they all agreed they preferred being called girls than women as it makes them feel younger. Therefore I am going to stand by what they want rather than be forced into giving them a label they are not happy with.

Try calling other grown women girls and see how you get on.

Also still haven't heard any sound reason why women and girls should be forced to use the same toilets as men.

Pawwed Rig

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Try calling other grown women girls and see how you get on.

My wife calls her friends 'the girls' too and my female friends are always meeting up with 'the girlos' (does that count). Most girls don't care whether you call them ladies/women/girls/females. It is just on the internet where it is an issue.
You would never survive in West Cork

Giacomo McGubbin

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Try calling other grown women girls and see how you get on.

Also still haven't heard any sound reason why women and girls should be forced to use the same toilets as men.

I'm a grown woman and I have never met a woman who objects to being called a girl, we all call each other girls.
I have no problem with unisex toilets, as I stated earlier in the thread I have a unisex toilet at home. I have used many single toilets in different establishments over the years.
Amazingly I have managed not to be sexually assaulted in any of those toilets.
This is too ridiculous an argument. Because men & women may use the toilet in the same room, then girls will be assaulted by perverts and mentally challenged men? Unbelievably ridiculous, wild ideas.

orubiru

TheChizler wrote: »

So, logically, it follows on from what you're saying that currently all that's stopping people from assaulting other people in the toilet of the opposite sex is a sign?

It's probably a little more complicated than that.

If I think about a unisex toilet in a posh restaurant, a trendy bar/nightclub or a fancy organic food supermarket then it seems like a pretty innocuous thing. In fact, there are plenty of establishments that already have unisex toilets with no problems at all.

If we are talking about a dodgy train station at 10pm or an empty shopping mall at closing time then the idea of unisex toilets becomes a bit less appealing.

I suppose what I am thinking is that if some dodgy looking male is spotted entering the ladies toilets in a quiet train station at night then a security guard or a station employee, or even a concerned citizen, might decide "that seems suspicious" and would be inclined to step in and make sure this man is removed from the ladies toilets. I think most ladies would be grateful for that as I am not sure how safe they'd feel going to the bathroom to find some guy lurking in there.

So while someone might reasonably say that their house has unisex toilets and they were in a fancy Italian restaurant last night and that had unisex toilets too, and be absolutely correct that unisex toilets can be safely implemented, they are ignoring the possibility that there are areas where unisex toilets may not be a great idea.

It's not just a sign that is stopping people from assaulting other people. There is an element of community policing going on where someone spotted going into the "wrong" toilet would be reported and ejected by the authorities.

Now, of course, the vast majority of people could use a unisex toilet with no problems at all. Under normal circumstances it would all be fine and there would be no "incidents". Unfortunately circumstances are not always normal and friendly and nice. Surely, in those circumstances, the responsible thing to do is to find some balance between the benefits and the risks?

Personally, I can think of places I've been in the world where the segregated toilets are intimidating and potentially dangerous and I honestly think that in some instances turning those segregated toilets into a single unisex toilet would make them even more dangerous.

If we can forget about nice, upmarket, establishments and our own homes for a minute and ask ourselves how comfortable we'd feel if Heuston Station had unisex toilets or if the Jervis Shopping Centre had unisex toilets. Would people seriously be OK with that?

Special Circumstances

To be honest I think the "unisex/cubicles/urinals*/queues/predators" debate is taking away from the maddest bit of the whole thing - will biology/science need to be re-written to cover the "not all people who menstruate are women" angle? Or do we all (or at least anyone with a scrap of scientific cop on) need to practice a prescribed double-think to accommodate the "b0ll0cks de jour"?

*I stand by the fact that they are a practical and ecological solution. This seemed to cause quite the hullabaloo for certain right-on-thinking types over in after hours... another classic example of just how eager they are to be upset about fairly simple things.

orubiru

bubblypop wrote: »

I have no problem with unisex toilets, as I stated earlier in the thread I have a unisex toilet at home. I have used many single toilets in different establishments over the years.
Amazingly I have managed not to be sexually assaulted in any of those toilets.
This is too ridiculous an argument. Because men & women may use the toilet in the same room, then girls will be assaulted by perverts and mentally challenged men? Unbelievably ridiculous, wild ideas.

There are women here who can't even take the LUAS home or get Dublin Bus to work without being harassed and hassled by anti-social men. This is happening out in the open on public transport and in public areas.

In some countries this issue has escalated to the point where people are demanding "women only" carriages on trains etc.

Yet, here we are arguing that actually what we want to do is have men and women using the same toilet facilities because the idea that this could be potentially dangerous is just too ridiculous and wild to consider.

Don't get me wrong, I am against the current trend of demonising men but we also have to be realistic. If the kind of stuff I frequently see out in the open on public transport was moved to a secluded private unisex toilet then I would have genuine concerns about the safety of the women using those toilets.

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

There are women here who can't even take the LUAS home or get Dublin Bus to work without being harassed and hassled by anti-social men. This is happening out in the open on public transport and in public areas.

In some countries this issue has escalated to the point where people are demanding "women only" carriages on trains etc.

Yet, here we are arguing that actually what we want to do is have men and women using the same toilet facilities because the idea that this could be potentially dangerous is just too ridiculous and wild to consider.

Don't get me wrong, I am against the current trend of demonising men but we also have to be realistic. If the kind of stuff I frequently see out in the open on public transport was moved to a secluded private unisex toilet then I would have genuine concerns about the safety of the women using those toilets.

Anti social behaviour on public transport is exactly that, anti social behaviour. It happens to anyone, I'm female & in the 22 years that I have been in Dublin & using public transport, nothing has ever happened to me. It has to my two brothers however, who have both been victims numerous times.
Thankfully Ireland doesn't have a culture which sees females raped just because they are on public transport & I don't believe that segregating the sexes to keep women safe from all the 'rapey' men out there is necessary.
I don't know if you are female or not but I can assure you that there are plenty of dodgy women, particularly around Dublin city centre, that if you saw them hanging around a toilet, you would hesitate to use it.

I'm not sure where this huge fear has suddenly come from,that demonises any men as rapists & all females are sitting victims, just waiting to be attacked.

It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.
I won't comment further.

Pawwed Rig

Good points orubiru however you are overlooking that men are more likely to be assaulted than women by strangers.
If you are bringing kids into the equation are little girls therefore more important than little boys?
Why is the safety of women more worthy than the safety of men? I would have thought providing a safe envirornment transcends any talk of mono or unisex toilets.

sbsquarepants

Hellrazer wrote: »

"Women arent the only ones who menstruate"

Em sorry basic junior cert biology will tell you different.

I work with roughly 120 men and 10 women. On any given day at least 25 people are clearly in their flowers. I'm with the yanks on this one:D

orubiru

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Good points orubiru however you are overlooking that men are more likely to be assaulted than women by strangers.
If you are bringing kids into the equation are little girls therefore more important than little boys?
Why is the safety of women more worthy than the safety of men? I would have thought providing a safe envirornment transcends any talk of mono or unisex toilets.

I totally agree that providing a safe environment should be the number one (haha) priority here.

I agree with you as well on the point that men are more likely to be assaulted and I can think of places I've been in the world where the men's toilets are intimidating and potentially dangerous.

The safety of women should not take priority over the safety of men and girls are not more important than boys BUT I can't imagine a situation where I'd be looking at an extremely dodgy men's toilet and thinking "it would be better for everyone if this were a unisex toilet".

orubiru

bubblypop wrote: »

Anti social behaviour on public transport is exactly that, anti social behaviour. It happens to anyone, I'm female & in the 22 years that I have been in Dublin & using public transport, nothing has ever happened to me. It has to my two brothers however, who have both been victims numerous times.
Thankfully Ireland doesn't have a culture which sees females raped just because they are on public transport & I don't believe that segregating the sexes to keep women safe from all the 'rapey' men out there is necessary.
I don't know if you are female or not but I can assure you that there are plenty of dodgy women, particularly around Dublin city centre, that if you saw them hanging around a toilet, you would hesitate to use it.

I'm not sure where this huge fear has suddenly come from,that demonises any men as rapists & all females are sitting victims, just waiting to be attacked.

It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.
I won't comment further.

Sorry but I feel that this is a silly way of looking at it.

OK, let's assume that there are the same number of dodgy women around as there are dodgy men. So you are basically saying "now you can be exposed to twice as many dodgy people with our brand new Unisex Toilets!". It makes no sense.

I am not demonising men as rapists at all. I am sure I specifically said in the post that I am against that trend.

I fully and completely accept that there are places in the world where the men's toilets are dangerous for men. What I am not in favour of is saying that it's a great idea for the women to have to share these toilets with us guys.

Now maybe that is not exactly in the spirit of equality but I really feel like you are saying "well only half of us are exposed to danger here, that's inequality, we should fix it so that EVERYONE is exposed to the danger".

I disagree. I think the current segregated system provides some added level of protection and I think that we should continue to use that system (and focus on making it safer).

If the counter argument to that is "well there are dodgy women too" then, fine, even more reason for me to want to keep the segregated system. It's bad enough dealing with just dodgy men I don't want to have to deal with both the dodgy men and the dodgy women.

I'm just thinking of examples around Dublin and I don't think that people would generally be enthusiastic about introducing only unisex toilets in places like Jervis, Copper Face Jacks, Heuston Station etc. Am I wrong? Is there a large public demand for this?

TheChizler

orubiru wrote: »

Sorry but I feel that this is a silly way of looking at it.

OK, let's assume that there are the same number of dodgy women around as there are dodgy men. So you are basically saying "now you can be exposed to twice as many dodgy people with our brand new Unisex Toilets!". It makes no sense.

And twice as many not-dodgy people to walk in on any dodgy situation and prevent it or raise the alarm.

eviltwin

There have been cases of people being attacked and sexually assaulted in toilets. A sign is not going to stop someone who wants to hurt another.

Cookie_Monster

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Try calling other grown women girls and see how you get on.

as opposed to the boys / lads / guys / bros etc

H3llR4iser

Wow, what a thread - starts from "Tampons in men's toilets" and covers terrorism, the Yugoslavian war, gender violence and unisex toilettes!

Going back to the original discussion, to be entirely honest I don't see the problem having a tampon dispenser in the men's toilette other than the fact that being in a college, with the inevitable amount of juvenile, immature people going around, most of the product will be put to completely wrong and wasteful use.

Special Circumstances

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Wow, what a thread - starts from "Tampons in men's toilets" and covers terrorism, the Yugoslavian war, gender violence and unisex toilettes!

Going back to the original discussion, to be entirely honest I don't see the problem having a tampon dispenser in the men's toilette other than the fact that being in a college, with the inevitable amount of juvenile, immature people going around, most of the product will be put to completely wrong and wasteful use.

Pretty much, but the "not all those who menstruate are women" was an epic revision of biological science.

If you joined up to one this groups and just decided to have fun with it, how far would you actually have to go before even the true believers would turn around and just say "I'm sorry that's just horse sh1t"?

Wibbs

H3llR4iser wrote: »

other than the fact that being in a college, with the inevitable amount of juvenile, immature people going around, most of the product will be put to completely wrong and wasteful use. correct and fun use

My 12 year old self typed that.

HamsterFace

Special Circumstances wrote:

If you joined up to one this groups and just decided to have fun with it, how far would you actually have to go before even the true believers would turn around and just say "I'm sorry that's just horse sh1t"?

Now that would be an interesting read, were some aspiring journalist / piss taker willing to do so

Maleligned

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Not at all. Just didn't know if the poster was male or female so used a term that could apply to either. Not sure where small penis implication came from? ?

Winky means small penis.

It does sound very much like the “you don’t want unisex bathrooms you’ve a small winky” line of argument. An extremely insult is hardly appropriate for a moderator.


onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/winky
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Winky

In short they are people who are weak, ineffectual and friendless, a failed evolutionary experiment that should be consigned to Mother Nature's rubbish dump. Incidentally the noun singular (Winky) is also the name given to a minutely small penis - says it all really.

Pawwed Rig

Maleligned wrote: »

Winky means small penis

Noted for future reference.