Tampons to be provided for men at US university.(mod warning in op.)

uck51js9zml2yt

Summer wind wrote: »

I don't know if I'm uneducated or if the people in Brown University are bat**** crazy but I thought a person needed a womb to menustrate.

Let's not state the obvious..we're do you think you are....anywhere except America!

mzungu

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Make all toilets unisex, problem solved. I hate urinals anyway.

If I want to stand in a line of other men with my willy out... I know where Dollymount is.

Don't take our urinals!!

KeyCode

mzungu wrote: »

Don't take our urinals!!

They're really handy and more environmentally friendly too! Huge water savings are possible.

Most of us don't have any issue with the minor bit of lack of modesty involved in using them.

If I was a man, I'd never give urinals up. Never.

If a pre-op trans man gets the odd tampon out of a machine, and using them isn't made compulsory by law for everyone else :P, I don't see the harm. It doesn't affect most people enough to be bothered, I'd have thought. I doubt it'll become commonplace anyway.

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Purely from an environmental point of view, without getting into any politics, urinals are a good idea to have rather than solely cubicles/toilets.

But I guess PC trumps all science and environmental concerns.

So let me guess, we can't have communal bathrooms or we hate science?

Is 'science' the new big fire-extinguisher for all dissent?

Taking a dump in a hole in the ground that you've dug with your bare hands in the office garden is probably environmentally friendly and scientifically kosher, but I'm guessing we're all still going to use the loo, and yes, science will still be safe.

KeyCode

No that's extremely bad for the environment!! Couldn't possibly be worse.

Modern sewage treatment systems are the only thing making human cities possible and not filthy, polluted, disease ridden hell holes.

If anything improved life for millions of people it was the invention of modern sanitation!!

Lack of toilets in some highly populated developing world cities is the single biggest cause of death and disease you could possibly think of.

KeyCode

If someone wants to out a few tampons in the gents, big deal. There is very limited demand for them.

How about just putting a multi purpose vending machine in? A few tampons included but mostly toothpaste, tooth brushes, condoms, maybe mobile phone credit ...

Penny Tration

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Yes indeed, spare a thought for the asexual people who don't identify with any gender

That's not what asexuality is...

Brendan Bendar

Curly Judge wrote: »

By the same logic we should have jock-strap dispensers in every female toilet?

They have no 'jocks' or 'junk'to put into the straps.

There's nothing there- only a gap.

Grayson

KeyCode wrote: »

Does anyone else think that the Americans are a bit obsessed with toilets?

A lot of places increasingly just have toilets of various types in cubicles, maybe a doored off area for urinals for those equipped with the plumbing for aiming at them and a communal area outside of those with mirrors and sinks and hand dryers.

I go to pubs and restaurants like that and it's the same at my office. We don't have male and female toilets and it's grand! Nobody gets into any political debates and you can gossip to female colleagues as well as male ones, or like most people just do what you need to do and exit asap because they're a bit smelly (despite the ventilation and cleaning)

Toilets aren't meant to be politically charged topics and I actually think a busy toilet is a lot safer than an isolated one.

In some ways you'd be safer in a mixed one in the sense there's always going to be someone wandering in.

I do think we need separate toilets for guinness drinkers though. No one wants to be in the same room as that

The_Valeyard

Grayson wrote: »

I do think we need separate toilets for guinness drinkers though. No one wants to be in the same room as that

Bah.

You want mixed bathroom, you get all of what goes with It, .....ALL of it.

Whahahhahahaha

Ken.

Mod- Closed for mod review.

Ken.

Mod-Thread reopened. Going forward there will be zero tolerance for abuse of trans people or jokes at their expense. Consider this your one and only warning.

El_Duderino 09

Omackeral wrote:

You can just say man. It's ok.

Well in this context 'man' covers both transgendered men and regular men from birth.

I was referring to the vast majority of men who will never need a tampon and will never be the slightest bit inconvenienced by the availability of tampons in the jacks -the non transgendered, vast majority.

seamus

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So let me guess, we can't have communal bathrooms or we hate science?

Is 'science' the new big fire-extinguisher for all dissent?

Taking a dump in a hole in the ground that you've dug with your bare hands in the office garden is probably environmentally friendly and scientifically kosher, but I'm guessing we're all still going to use the loo, and yes, science will still be safe.

Actually a big dump in a hole in the ground in fact isn't very environmentally friendly because human faeces as a rule is quite toxic to plants.

Hygiene is also a major factor; urinals are hygienic, holes in the ground not so much.

Anyway, the point is that many people seem to think there's a fundamental incompatibility between unisex bathrooms and urinals. So switching to unisex is usually equated with abolishing urinals to "make everyone equal". Which would be a retrograde step environmentally and hygienically

When there's not really any such requirement. No reason why a unisex bathroom can't have urinals. If a man feels uncomfortable peeing with women entering the room, he's free to use a cubicle.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Who cares what someone puts in their vagina? You can't be offended at someone needing sanitary products to deal with the output of bodily fluids.

annascott

is this for female to male transgender people who are pre hysterectomy?

Grayson

seamus wrote: »

Actually a big dump in a hole in the ground in fact isn't very environmentally friendly because human faeces as a rule is quite toxic to plants.

Hygiene is also a major factor; urinals are hygienic, holes in the ground not so much.

Anyway, the point is that many people seem to think there's a fundamental incompatibility between unisex bathrooms and urinals. So switching to unisex is usually equated with abolishing urinals to "make everyone equal". Which would be a retrograde step environmentally and hygienically

When there's not really any such requirement. No reason why a unisex bathroom can't have urinals. If a man feels uncomfortable peeing with women entering the room, he's free to use a cubicle.

Or the urinals could be partitioned off.

Grayson

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Who cares what someone puts in their vagina? You can't be offended at someone needing sanitary products to deal with the output of bodily fluids.

I wasn't offended until you put it that way

annascott wrote: »

is this for female to male transgender people who are pre hysterectomy?

yep. And in the womans bathroom it's for all the women. Pretty much making sure anyone who has a uterus and needs these products gets the.

storker

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually there's a tribe in New Guinea IIRC, where the men give themselves nosebleeds once a month as a religious analogue to the women.

By any chance, would this take place on a Saturday night after the pubs shut?