UCD to re-designate more than 170 toilets as gender neutral (Mod warning in op)

Billy86

DelaneyO wrote: »

Feminists wanted equality. Now they have it. Suck it up.

I may have missed them but have not seeing many feminists complaining about this?

Bob24

koumi wrote: »

I think most people here have used a unisex toilet or bathroom facility at some stage in their lives but wouldn't really regard it in that way. If you've ever stayed in a public hospital, you'll know that every ward contains a toilet which facilitates both men and women and disabled people, it's just a singular cubicle with toilet and shower which accommodates anyone physically able to use it. The all gender toilets in college campus are this, most were designated as disabled spaces originally but now function as a multi gender space.

In the same breath, if you happen to be in a hospital waiting room you will find gender specific toilets, which is probably sensible given the volumes of people who may be needing to use the facilities so I don't think abandoning separate spaces is what is being suggested. The singular units are additional to gender specific areas and I don't believe that anyone has proposed doing away with regular multi user gender designated spaces at all.

Agreed to a good extend but with important additions and a disagreement.

Yes as I also mentioned in a previous post a few unisex single toilets per building would solve the issue.

But I will add that they should simply be labeled "WC" or "toilets" for 2 important reasons:
1) Make it clear that those who are not interested in solving a practical problem but rather in using public signage as a way to mark their ideological territory won't be entertained ("gender neutral toilets" or "all gender toilets" are just longer versions of "toilets" and "WC" which bring no more information and are simply intended at politicising signage - there is absolutely no practical reason to favour these phrases to the simpler and already existing words we have).
2) Be in a clear position not to entertain anyone who has a problem with those unisex toilets either. Unisex "WC" or "toilets" have always existed in this form and there is no good reason to suddenly be against them - end of discussion.

In short if there is an issue, fix it but leave politics out of it or don't act surprised when it becomes contraverstial (it will also avoid stupid situations like this one where unisex toilets already exist and disabled toilets next door are still relabelled as "all gender" for no practical reason).

And my disagreement is on disabled toilets. Sure in an hospital ward where there is little toilet traffic for the number of toilets, respectful enough users, regular cleaning and high hygiene standards, and due to the nature of the premises a good number of users might need special facilities (because statistically there will be a much higher proportion of disabled, but also sick, injured, or simply old people with mobility issues), then it makes sense.

But in a large building on a university campus where toilet traffic can be very high and with rush times (for exemple during short breaks between classes), and where lets be honest the average person doesn't take as good care of the facilities*, I think it is a rather bad decision to stop designating these toilets as disabled only (of course some people who don't have physical disabilities are sometimes using them already, but if they stop being specifically designated as such that number will increase a lot). This is because it is important to make sure they are available, clean, and in working order when a disabled person needs them. So if the university wants single unisex toilets in my view they need to create/designate a few new ones per building which are separate from disabled toilets.

* personal experience, I am not a student anymore but do visit UCD several times a week

currants

Red_Wake wrote: »

Is there an inherent contradiction in banning posters for linking transgenderism to mental illness, while at the same time commending UCD for extending the use of toilets which were previously only for the disabled?

Yes, erosion of services for people with disabilities to make way for the SJW cause. Disability is apparently not as appealing to a lot of folk as the trans agenda

Bob24

koumi wrote: »

I think most people here have used a unisex toilet or bathroom facility at some stage in their lives but wouldn't really regard it in that way. If you've ever stayed in a public hospital, you'll know that every ward contains a toilet which facilitates both men and women and disabled people, it's just a singular cubicle with toilet and shower which accommodates anyone physically able to use it.

And just one more note for reference: I don't think many people are actually confused about recognising these individual toilets as unisex, most discussions in the last few pages were around people arguing in favour or against unisex large and shared toilets with cubicles, which are a different story.

ceadaoin.

jmayo wrote: »

Sorry but isn't the whole argument about who has and hasn't a dick



Actually funny thing is AFAIK the poster you replied to no so long ago lived in Toronto, Canada anyway, so may be able to shed some light on that case and what effects it had opinions.

They just seem to be ignoring any reference to it or any other arguments about safety in favour of claiming that sex segregated toilets are a relic of a prudish past with no need for them in the modern age, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly there are large numbers of religious women and men who would be excluded from using unisex facilities due to their religious beliefs. I wonder what their position on that would be? I mean if separate facilities aren't needed in modern society they should just have to suck it up shouldn't they?

Will I Am Not

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They just seem to be ignoring any reference to it or any other arguments about safety in favour of claiming that sex segregated toilets are a relic of a prudish past with no need for them in the modern age, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly there are large numbers of religious women and men who would be excluded from using unisex facilities due to their religious beliefs. I wonder what their position on that would be? I mean if separate facilities aren't needed in modern society they should just have to suck it up shouldn't they?

Hopefully this doesn’t get ignored.

koumi

Bob24 wrote: »

And just one more note for reference: I don't think many people are actually confused about recognising these individual toilets as unisex, most discussions in the last few pages were around people arguing in favour or against unisex large and shared toilets with cubicles, which are a different story.

This is true but it has nothing to do with the actual topic of discussion. Granted, people decided to take it that way but it's a complete phantom issue and bears no relvence to the proposal by UCD. The reality is these facilities have been in operation in most every other college campus in Ireland since last year, with little fanfare or remark outside of this one particular university. I don't know why that is but I suppose people need something to shout at every now and again. So lets make an issue of it. (also, in reference to your previous post, as far as I am aware new facilities have been built to accomodate the increase in use so as not to "erode" disabled access, if anything there are now more spaces for disabled users as a result)

Bob24

koumi wrote: »

(also, in reference to your previous post, as far as I am aware new facilities have been built to accomodate the increase in use so as not to "erode" disabled access, if anything there are now more spaces for disabled users as a result)

If that is the case it is good but they should label them separately, which doesn't seem to be the case in UCD from what I can see (and they might have fixed it, but the picture I posted from DIT earlier is just ridiculous as they already had the appropriate facilities and still felt the need to rename the disabled toilets literally next door).

koumi

Bob24 wrote: »

If that is the case it is good but they should label them separately, which doesn't seem to be the case in UCD from what I can see (and they might have fixed it, but the picture I posted from DIT earlier is just ridiculous as they already had the appropriate facilities and still felt the need to rename the disabled toilets literally next door).

I'm not trans but I think even trans people might have an issue with being directed to use specifically designated "trans" facilities. I'm guessing labelling is merely symptomatic of a need to clearly signpost that space as user friendly.

Bob24

koumi wrote: »

I'm not trans but I think even trans people might have an issue with being directed to use specifically designated "trans" facilities. I'm guessing labelling is merely symptomatic of a need to clearly signpost that space as user friendly.

No of course, as per my previous post just call them "toilets" and it is clear they are for everyone with no stigma. What I was saying is that regular unisex toilets should be separate facilities and not overlap with relabelled disabled toilets which are there to cater for specific situations (i.e. if as you mentioned they are building new facilities it's what I think is the right way to go, but they should just label these toilets and keep disabled toilets as they are to make it clear they are reserved for a specific situation with physical disabilities and which will have the consequence of keeping them in better condition and more available).

mzungu

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They just seem to be ignoring any reference to it or any other arguments about safety in favour of claiming that sex segregated toilets are a relic of a prudish past with no need for them in the modern age, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly there are large numbers of religious women and men who would be excluded from using unisex facilities due to their religious beliefs. I wonder what their position on that would be? I mean if separate facilities aren't needed in modern society they should just have to suck it up shouldn't they?

In that case they would just go for the women/men only toilets. As I understand it, the it is only a minority that will be unisex, the rest (majority) will be the usual bog standard (pun not intended) single sex facilities.

koumi

Bob24 wrote: »

No of course, just label them "toilets" and they are for everyone. My point that regular unisex toilets should be separate facilities and not overlap with disabled toilets which are there to cater for specific situations (i.e. of they are building new facilities it's great but they should just label them toilets an keep disabled toilets as they are to make it clear they are).

I don't personally have a problem with it, disabled toilets are unisex spaces anyway, they've now just been upgraded to user friendly facilities. (and there are more of them)

freshpopcorn

I don't think the changing the disabled toilets into unisex toilets is a good Precedent to be setting for business/shops/etc.
These toilets are generally designed for people with mobility issue be it somebody is in a wheel chair, an older person,a young or elderly person person who may need assistance or somebody with a condition who might have a condition such as Chrohns disease.

ceadaoin.

mzungu wrote: »

In that case they would just go for the women/men only toilets. As I understand it, the it is only a minority that will be unisex, the rest (majority) will be the usual bog standard (pun not intended) single sex facilities.

Yes I know, i don't think anyone has a problem with that. the poster I was referring to seems to be arguing that there is no need in today's day and age, for single sex facilities at all, that it is a throwback to victorian times and everything should be unisex.

I was just wondering if they would tell a Muslim woman for example who didn't want to use a communal changing room to get over it that single sex facilites are a relic of the prudish past with no place in modern society. I highly doubt it

koumi

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I don't think the changing the disabled toilets into unisex toilets is a good Precedent to be setting for business/shops/etc.
These toilets are generally designed for people with mobility issue be it somebody is in a wheel chair, an older person,a young or elderly person person who may need assistance or somebody with a condition who might have a condition such as Chrohns disease.

I don't think the idea is to eradicate disabled spaces, but to create more multi-functional facilities. I hope they haven't removed all designated disabled toilets, they have reassigned "some" of them while in the process of creating even more multi-functional ones.

mzungu

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes I know, i don't think anyone has a problem with that. the poster I was referring to seems to be arguing that there is no need in today's day and age, for single sex facilities at all, that it is a throwback to victorian times and everything should be unisex.

Ah that's my bad, I misread it.

freshpopcorn

koumi wrote: »

I don't think the idea is to eradicate disabled spaces, but to create more multi-functional facilities. I hope they haven't removed all designated disabled toilets, they have reassigned "some" of them while in the process of creating even more multi-functional ones.

Just in my opinion these toilets have facilities that are need by some people or they may have conditions and I think they should be left as they are and not be taken up by perfectly well able bodied people.
If UCD wanted to build a block of unisex toilets. i'd have no issue with it.

koumi

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just in my opinion these toilets have facilities that are need by some people or they may have conditions and I think they should be left as they are and not be taken up by perfectly well able bodied people.
If UCD wanted to build a block of unisex toilets. i'd have no issue with it.

The irony in that is how this thread started out stating trans people were mentally ill. If they were designated special status, would they then be permitted to use the disabled facilities, given they would then have legal right to use them as such? I mean, technically they would be classified as having a disability right.

Annasopra

professore wrote: »

You said all toilets in UCD are open to all. I doubt if that's actually true.

No. I didnt.

Annasopra

Bob24 wrote: »

Picking a specific minor point in a post and personally going after the poster based on it doesn’t make valid argument against the whole post. Of course I could live with used tampons next to me when I do my thing it but it is also obvious a majority of men would rather avoid it if possible, this was just another point to add to previous ones and an exemple amongst others of how men and women toilets are different.

Doesn’t change the other major points either:
- urinals *are* impractical in unisex toilets (I guess we’ll just agree to disagree and people can judge based on their own experience, but again large public unisex toilets or unisex toilets with urinals are absolutely not the norm in continental Europe)
- pretty much all cultures around the world came up with the same concept of male and female toilets so there is no arguing that it is something g most human beings feel makes sense

What?

Seriously? The vast majority of men have problems with sanitary bins? Wtaf is this?

Bob24

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What?

Seriously? The vast majority of men have problems with sanitary bins? Wtaf is this?

To be accurate, what is written in the post you quoted is that a majority of men would rather avoid having used tampons next to them when they do their thing in the toilets if possible, which is not quite the same as the way you rewrote it (and I still think it is a fair statement).

But again it was a very minor point in a larger argument/discussion, I don't get the value for the thread in digging this out in isolation from a few pages ago?

endacl

endacl wrote: »

I'd say there'll be a campaign to switch them back shortly after, once the reality of piddle splatters and seats being left up kicks in.

Student idealism.

Bless.

Perfect response. The mundane reality of equality is very often an anti-climax after the euphoric "victory".