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

Podge_irl

tretorn wrote: »

Meanwhile yesterday another illegal immigrant, Eygptian, surprise, surprise has been convicted of rape. He sexually assaulted a woman on a bus, followed her off the bus, told her he would give her the best ten minutes of her life and raped her.

Now we can have this filth pretending to be transgender so they can wander around ucds changing rooms including the private rooms which are communal. The public ones have cubicles at least.

Will UCD accept responsibility if a woman is raped by a man pretending to be transgender, do ciswomen as the trans community refer to women who were born female have any say in whats happening in their space. The trans lobby must be very vocal, they are a teeny minority and we are accommodating and yoelding a lot to suit them.

So let me get this straight.

The plethora of laws we have covering sexual assualt and rape do nothing to stop a potential rapist. However if a university has designated somewhere as a female only bathroom he'll be stopped in his tracks outside the door?

freshpopcorn

Can we not just have a referendum on this and let the people decide!

Rala_

Bill C 16 dear god

Brian?

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Anyway, I was reading the article there. The changing facilities, fùck that, that's peanuts. Take a look at this quote.






No words.

She wants history to be included on the school history curriculum!!! The absolute nerve. It’s an OUTRAGE that must be stopped.

Ffs.

GoldenLynel

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ive been in unisex toilets all over the world. I'm not sure why Ireland is so backward on things like this. I think the big problem here is the term "gender Neutral". Some seem to fear that the "gays" are taking over the world Personally I think "unisex" wouldn't get the reaction that "gender neutral"

Don't forget folks there is no one dragging you into these toilets. UCD still have plenty of separate male/female toilets

I am feeling the same way. I've been in unisex toilets in loads of places but they are all pretty much single cubicles. So, no problem.

I've been in several public toilets all over the world where I have felt totally unsafe and I can only imagine what the situation would be like if those toilets were unisex.

Been to festivals where people of all genders are pissing and ****ting themselves in public and nobody seemed to care that much.

I assume that the UCD toilets are all of the single cubicle variety? It's more of a sticking point than the phrases Gender Neutral and Unisex if people are imagining a gender neutral toilet as being the same as a regular toilet with a few stalls and a few urinals but they've just knocked down the wall between the gents and the ladies.

Knock down the wall between the gents and the ladies toilets at Edinburgh Waverly station after 9pm at night and see how agreeable women are to having a unisex toilet. Not very agreeable, I would think. :eek:

Brian?

Red_Wake wrote: »

The current teaching of the history of British rule in Ireland is a bit disingenuous as is - the average Irish peasant was no worse treated than the average English peasant. 

Neither had much in the way of rights and were at the mercy of the ambitions and madness of an aristocracy, which was aided by elements of the native aristocracy to further their own position.

However, this is largely glossed over in favour of a narrative where the english oppressed the irish, and disregards the wider trend across the world of conquering forces oppressing natives, and their own[the treatment of the French by their aristocracy is only mentioned in the context of their Revolution, and nothing is made of the massacre of the Huguenots, an act of sectarian genocide that puts anything the British did in Irelan to shame].

And that's before bringing up how the British army recruited plenty of soldiers from both Protestants and Catholics[admittedly the Catholics were historically relegated to the common soldiery rather than officers, but that has as much to do with the domination of the officer corps armies of that period by the aristocracy, which was Anglican].

Really, the Irish experience of British rule is just a bog standard tale of haves vs have notes, given a nationalistic and sectarian spin. It was an unpleasant, but common experience for people at the time.

Hah? This is exactly what is taught in School. You know, history.

Unless they’ve changed history since I was in school. Not the curriculum now, actual history. I didn’t think we had the technology. But maybe the gays and the lesbians and th transgenders changed it to suit themselves. Sneaky.

Billy86

Brian? wrote: »

She wants history to be included on the school history curriculum!!! The absolute nerve. It’s an OUTRAGE that must be stopped.

Ffs.

I'm pretty sure they changed the curriculum in 2006 the year after I did my LC, but while it's a subject I've always enjoyed a lot, I found the curriculum for history when I was in school quite lacking: broken in half (Ireland, Europe) with one section before WWI, another between both wars, and the third (really short and somewhat vague section) being post WWII.

More modern history is (or at least in 2005, was) needed in my opinion and should make it up to about 15-20 years from present day, which would come to around the time the students were born. There was also too much focus on 'hard history' (dates, names of agreements, peoples names and job titles, etc) but not enough on the 'soft history' which I think much more can be learned from (essentially asking why did X happen, how did it develop, etc etc).

Just an aside but it was always a bit of a gripe of mine during the leaving cert even though I had an excellent teacher in the subject who still managed to keep it interesting.

Sleeper12

Brian? wrote: »

Hah? This is exactly what is taught in School. You know, history.

Unless they’ve changed history since I was in school. Not the curriculum now, actual history. I didn’t think we had the technology. But maybe the gays and the lesbians and th transgenders changed it to suit themselves. Sneaky.

I think Trump must have been the History teacher with his alternative facts

Bob24

GoldenLynel wrote: »

I assume that the UCD toilets are all of the single cubicle variety?

I go there twice a week for an evening course and have seen most buildings in the past few years.

Gents toilets would be large enough ones with urinals and a couple of cubicles which are more or less properly separated depending on the building. Definitely not suited to be tuned into unisex toilets as they are. I assume ladies toilets are similar bar the urinals and with more cubicles.

The only toilets which are clearly separated and suitable as is are their disabled ones, but while not 100% sure I believe the ones in the building I've been going to recently are already unisex.

I think the problem is more what the hell does "gender neutral toilets" mean, i.e. for exemple what do you do with urinals which will never be neutral as they require certain physical attributes to be useful, and what about most people's sense of not sharing large public toilets with people the opposite sex which exists in pretty much any culture on this planet?

Otherwise it's just political crap. Individual unisex toilets with a sign just saying "Toilets" or "WC" have been around for a very long time and absolutely nothing needs to change about them. Neither removing them not relabelling them to flatter the political ego of some people.

Red_Wake

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Hah? This is exactly what is taught in School. You know, history.

Unless they’ve changed history since I was in school. Not the curriculum now, actual history. I didn’t think we had the technology. But maybe the gays and the lesbians and th transgenders changed it to suit themselves. Sneaky.

I think Trump must have been the History teacher with his alternative facts

The soft aspect giving the wider historical context is not done at all at JC level, which is the level most people do.

pumpkin4life

Brian? wrote: »

She wants history to be included on the school history curriculum!!! The absolute nerve. It’s an OUTRAGE that must be stopped.

Ffs.

Hey! It's the communist (holy shìt) libertarian socialist!

How you doin?

:D:D:D

c.p.w.g.w

Toilet facilities at cliff's of moher are gender neutral

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

She wants history to be included on the school history curriculum!!! The absolute nerve. It’s an OUTRAGE that must be stopped.

Ffs.

Ye, I'm sure she has no agenda whatsoever.

Brian?

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Hey! It's the communist (holy shìt) libertarian socialist!

How you doin?

:D:D:D

Is this supposed to pass for humour?

RollieFingers

Gender neutral toilets were introduced to DIT Aungier Stret at the beginning of this academic year. Basically signs were put on the wheelchair users toilets saying they were now gender neutral toilets. When the Student Union proudly pronounced this on social media it was added that anyone who disagreed with the decision would be immediately blocked! Says it all really, any potential debate around the subject shut down instantly, all in the name of equality of course

DickSwiveller

RollieFingers wrote: »

Gender neutral toilets were introduced to DIT Aungier Stret at the beginning of this academic year. Basically signs were put on the wheelchair users toilets saying they were now gender neutral toilets. When the Student Union proudly pronounced this on social media it was added that anyone who disagreed with the decision would be immediately blocked! Says it all really, any potential debate around the subject shut down instantly, all in the name of equality of course

It's amazing that people on here think this is just a trivial change, that no-one should be upset by. (Although these same people probably share the same political views as the right on students). It's fundamentally a political move.

riffmongous

Bob24 wrote: »

I go there twice a week for an evening course and have seen most buildings in the past few years.

Gents toilets would be large enough ones with urinals and a couple of cubicles which are more or less properly separated depending on the building. Definitely not suited to be tuned into unisex toilets as they are. I assume ladies toilets are similar bar the urinals and with more cubicles.

The only toilets which are clearly separated and suitable as is are their disabled ones, but while not 100% sure I believe the ones in the building I've been going to recently are already unisex.

I think the problem is more what the hell does "gender neutral toilets" mean, i.e. for exemple what do you do with urinals which will never be neutral as they require certain physical attributes to be useful, and what about most people's sense of not sharing large public toilets with people the opposite sex which exists in pretty much any culture on this planet?

Otherwise it's just political crap. Individual unisex toilets with a sign just saying "Toilets" or "WC" have been around for a very long time and absolutely nothing needs to change about them. Neither removing them not relabelling them to flatter the political ego of some people.

Most likely it will just be disabled toilets and smaller single cubicle ones, according to an other article from the Times this is just what WIT did last year, they said that most trans people were just using those toilets anyway so it was just making it official and clear.

uck51js9zml2yt

What do you expect with society going down the pan!

freshpopcorn

Being discussed on Today with Daithi with Maura now!

DickSwiveller

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Being discussed on Today with Daithi with Maura now!

All in agreement of course. Typical RTE groupthink.

cbreeze

It will be interesting to read the graffiti on the walls when the scheme starts, and who will be able to decipher which gender wrote it!

freshpopcorn

DickSwiveller wrote: »

All in agreement of course. Typical RTE groupthink.

Maura said she wouldn't really like it as did Daithi. The two guests that they had on the man said he wouldn't feel comfortable and the woman into it the most.

Assetbacked

I would protest if disabled toilets became toilets purely for disabled people (rather than as they currently are which is a normal toilet with added features for when a disabled person wants to use them).

pleas advice

cbreeze wrote: »

It will be interesting to read the graffiti on the walls...

We're magic,
We're magic

falinn merking

I think this idea is disgusting there are only two sexes male and female.

Females in one toilet males in the other, common sense since the creation of public toilets.

This will be a welcome move for perverts pedofiles and so on.
Little girls will be going into toilets with strange grown men already in there.

PC be damned people who thinks this is necessary or a good idea have mental issues in my opinion.

Also as a fully grown man I don't want to be open to false accusations from women.
Women also have the time of month thing and I am sure they don't want men in their toilets.

If this is what is steaming out of our universities God help us all.

B.A._Baracus

When you're 18 to 23 you haven't a ****ing clue how the world works. So let these college students think they are being cool and throwing down the walls of separation.

Once they get a bit older they'll realise how things are. But by that time the newer generation of job****es will be doing their pc thing too :pac:

Rinse and repeat.

Grayson

RollieFingers wrote: »

Gender neutral toilets were introduced to DIT Aungier Stret at the beginning of this academic year. Basically signs were put on the wheelchair users toilets saying they were now gender neutral toilets. When the Student Union proudly pronounced this on social media it was added that anyone who disagreed with the decision would be immediately blocked! Says it all really, any potential debate around the subject shut down instantly, all in the name of equality of course

Where's that post where they said they'd block anyone who disagreed with them?

Grayson

falinn merking wrote: »

I think this idea is disgusting there are only two sexes male and female.

Females in one toilet males in the other, common sense since the creation of public toilets.

This will be a welcome move for perverts pedofiles and so on.
Little girls will be going into toilets with strange grown men already in there.

PC be damned people who thinks this is necessary or a good idea have mental issues in my opinion.

Also as a fully grown man I don't want to be open to false accusations from women.
Women also have the time of month thing and I am sure they don't want men in their toilets.

If this is what is steaming out of our universities God help us all.

Who wants to take this?

falinn merking

It use to be a saying you can't even have a s**te in peace no thanks to the pc brigade this has really come through.

It this comes to pass in a more widespread sense and I really need to use a toilet while out I will leave the toilet seat down and wizz all over it and I suggest men who do not agree with gender neutral toilets to do the same.

chrissb8

No problem with it but as long as they don't pander and buckle under stupid pressure from idiot students for what is still a very small minority of people.

Being PC is fine to a point. Then you have to just introduce logic and reason because like any movement there's plenty of bulls**t that comes along with it.

rondog

Anyone that is Gender Neutral is a complete FKN KNOB

riffmongous

falinn merking wrote: »

I think this idea is disgusting there are only two sexes male and female.

Females in one toilet males in the other, common sense since the creation of public toilets.

This will be a welcome move for perverts pedofiles and so on.
Little girls will be going into toilets with strange grown men already in there.

PC be damned people who thinks this is necessary or a good idea have mental issues in my opinion.

Also as a fully grown man I don't want to be open to false accusations from women.
Women also have the time of month thing and I am sure they don't want men in their toilets.

If this is what is steaming out of our universities God help us all.

Except none of that will apply here

University authorities will shortly begin the process of re-designating single-stall toilets and changing rooms as gender neutral.

It's a pity the OP didn't include some more quotes from the article in the first place :rolleyes:

falinn merking

Grayson wrote: »

Who wants to take this?

Take what exactly?

This is what I have been though in school and by adults since I was a young child.
Men hanging around ladies toilets would have been arrested.

Bob24

The DIT ones in their full glory: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=364270307339061&set=p.364270307339061

I have to say I understand the confusion of the girl who posted the picture. They already had clearly labeled unisex toilets and still had to relabel the (presumably also unisex) disabled toilets next to them as "all genders".

Kind of shows that it was not about introducing unisex toilets or solving an actual problem but more about scoring political points.

falinn merking

riffmongous wrote: »

Except none of that will apply here



It's a pity the OP didn't include some more quotes from the article in the first place :rolleyes:

Right that was not made clear a toilet that only fits one person at a time fine.
The rest of what I said I stand behind 100%.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Red_Wake wrote: »

The current teaching of the history of British rule in Ireland is a bit disingenuous as is - the average Irish peasant was no worse treated than the average English peasant. 

Neither had much in the way of rights and were at the mercy of the ambitions and madness of an aristocracy, which was aided by elements of the native aristocracy to further their own position.

However, this is largely glossed over in favour of a narrative where the english oppressed the irish, and disregards the wider trend across the world of conquering forces oppressing natives, and their own[the treatment of the French by their aristocracy is only mentioned in the context of their Revolution, and nothing is made of the massacre of the Huguenots, an act of sectarian genocide that puts anything the British did in Irelan to shame].

And that's before bringing up how the British army recruited plenty of soldiers from both Protestants and Catholics[admittedly the Catholics were historically relegated to the common soldiery rather than officers, but that has as much to do with the domination of the officer corps armies of that period by the aristocracy, which was Anglican].

Really, the Irish experience of British rule is just a bog standard tale of haves vs have notes, given a nationalistic and sectarian spin. It was an unpleasant, but common experience for people at the time.

I think we're prone to exaggeration in certain circumstances. The Irish like to spin a yarn, stories grow legs etc.

pilly

Unisex toilets are all well and good except when you work with 23 men and 1 woman, the filth! I can't begin to describe it. And the smell.

falinn merking

A Wyoming transsexual person was convicted of raping a ten-year-old girl.

Miguel Martinez, a biological male who identifies as a woman and goes by the name Michelle, was found guilty of first and second degree sexual abuse against a child. Now, he faces 70 years in prison.

According to The Billings Gazette, the girl told police Martinez lured the child into a bathroom on March 23, where he molested and raped her.

The victim reportedly told police about the assault, saying "it hurt" before breaking down in tears.

Nurses at the Wyoming Medical Center examined the girl and found inflammation and abrasions.

According to court documents, Police reported they found Martinez after the assault "extremely intoxicated." He accused the victim of "talking crap" and called her allegations a "publicity stunt."

Martinez pleaded not guilty to both counts of sexual abuse.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/october/transgender-woman-convicted-of-raping-10-year-old-girl-in-nbsp-restroom

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

The DIT ones in all there glory: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=364270307339061&set=p.364270307339061

I have to say I understand the confusion of the girl who posted the picture. They already had clearly labeled unisex toilets and still had to relabel the (presumably also unisex) disabled toilets next to them as "all genders".

Kind of shows that it was not about introducing unisex toilets or solving an actual problem but more about scoring political points.

Fantastic stuff. So the left is for male and female and the right is for male, female, other and disabled.

Pepefrogok

pilly wrote: »

Unisex toilets are all well and good except when you work with 23 men and 1 woman, the filth! I can't begin to describe it. And the smell.

Well just tell the dirty bitch to be a bit more considerate!

Billy86

pilly wrote: »

Unisex toilets are all well and good except when you work with 23 men and 1 woman, the filth! I can't begin to describe it. And the smell.

Funny that, I work with about 50 women and maybe 5-6 guys.

The women toilet is out of order and blocked constantly meaning they need to use the disabled, which then gets blocked literally every single time this happens, then the women's is back available for a week or so before being blocked again, and so on and so on. Now that's f***ing rank, especially since the mens has never had so much as a clogged sink! :pac:

And on that note, from previous housemates I've found that women are far nastier in the bathroom - it's more of a person-by-person thing so I'm sure I've been somewhat unlucky there, but the amount of times I've come across more hair down a sink or the toilet than you'd get off from wet-shaving a St. Bernard was appalling to put it mild. I literally had to use a plunger to get it all out once!! :eek:

DEFTLEFTHAND

Dr Brown wrote: »

Is it any wonder Irish Universities are slipping down the world rankings when they are more concenred about gender neutral toilets.

We've always had woeful rankings though in fairness.

This type of thing/movement stems from the successful Universities abroad, particularly in the USA. The Irish always take their cue from the yanks and British.

B.A._Baracus

rondog wrote: »

Anyone that is Gender Neutral is a complete FKN KNOB

It would appear the lines between mental illness and "gender" are getting blurred.

tritium

riffmongous wrote: »

Most likely it will just be disabled toilets and smaller single cubicle ones, according to an other article from the Times this is just what WIT did last year, they said that most trans people were just using those toilets anyway so it was just making it official and clear.

I hope not. I genuinely find it quite offensive that disabled toilets would be officially opened up to anyone else. They’re limited enough already and disabled people typically have significant access problems with regular toilets. While I appreciate other groups face issues I don’t see why one of the groups who face such huge challenges should be officially be asked to suck it up. We already have a pretty dickish national attitude to the use of disabled facilities, parking spaces etc.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Ye, I'm sure she has no agenda whatsoever.

I'm 100% sure does have an agenda. To normalise LGBT+ lifestyles and shine a light on how poorly treated LGBT+ people have been treated in Ireland in recent times.

I hope the normality of gay relationships in pre Christian Ireland is added.

DEFTLEFTHAND

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

It would appear the lines between mental illness and "gender" are getting blurred.

Is it right to enable mental illness.

When does this become an ethical issue?

_Kaiser_

To be honest I think it's yet again another kneejerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist, coupled with the "need" we have these days to show how enlightened we are, but howandever...

The comparisons with home toilet facilities are wrong too..
- At home, no-one is going to walk in while you're using the facilities
- At home, the other users are generally going to be family members or friends.. not total strangers

Now, if the "gender neutral"/unisex facilities are going to just be separate cubicles then there's not really an issue - except that some may feel uncomfortable in the shared area where you wash/dry your hands, but I can understand why some people may not be thrilled about the idea depending on how it's implemented (which no doubt will vary by location)

falinn merking

Brian? wrote: »

I'm 100% sure does have an agenda. To normalise LGBT+ lifestyles and shine a light on how poorly treated LGBT+ people have been treated in Ireland in recent times.

I hope the normality of gay relationships in pre Christian Ireland is added.

What about how poorly homeless people have been treated.
What about how poorly working class people have been treated.
What about how poorly disabled people have been treated.
What about how poorly victims of crime have been treated.
What about how poorly the elderly have been treated.

You use the toilet you have the plumbing for simple.:rolleyes:

ricero

Dont get this "i have a gender neutral bathroom in my house" argument from some of the delusional liberals in this thread.

Strange men and women dont **** and piss in my home. Its such an idiotic and flawed argument.

riffmongous

Red_Wake wrote: »

The current teaching of the history of British rule in Ireland is a bit disingenuous as is - the average Irish peasant was no worse treated than the average English peasant.

Neither had much in the way of rights and were at the mercy of the ambitions and madness of an aristocracy, which was aided by elements of the native aristocracy to further their own position.

However, this is largely glossed over in favour of a narrative where the english oppressed the irish, and disregards the wider trend across the world of conquering forces oppressing natives, and their own[the treatment of the French by their aristocracy is only mentioned in the context of their Revolution, and nothing is made of the massacre of the Huguenots, an act of sectarian genocide that puts anything the British did in Irelan to shame].

And that's before bringing up how the British army recruited plenty of soldiers from both Protestants and Catholics[admittedly the Catholics were historically relegated to the common soldiery rather than officers, but that has as much to do with the domination of the officer corps armies of that period by the aristocracy, which was Anglican].

Really, the Irish experience of British rule is just a bog standard tale of haves vs have notes, given a nationalistic and sectarian spin. It was an unpleasant, but common experience for people at the time.

I'm pretty sure Ireland was noted as being much poorer than the rest of the UK, anecdotally Ireland was used to highlight just how poor the west Ukraine was, and scientifically up until Independence Dublin had a child mortality rate way outside of the range of what was accepted in Britain, indeed one of the worst in the western world