Page Summary
lil-shepherd.livejournal.com - (no subject)
sebastienne.livejournal.com - (no subject)
sebastienne.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ayaron.livejournal.com - (no subject)
potatofiend.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ophe1ia-in-red.livejournal.com - (no subject)
lil-shepherd.livejournal.com - (no subject)
osymandias.livejournal.com - (no subject)
dreamstothesky.livejournal.com - (no subject)
robot-mel.livejournal.com - (no subject)
mentalfirewall.livejournal.com - (no subject)
steerpikelet.livejournal.com - (no subject)
sebastienne.livejournal.com - (no subject)
vampire-kitten.livejournal.com - (no subject)
vampire-kitten.livejournal.com - (no subject)
dreamstothesky.livejournal.com - (no subject)
sebastienne.livejournal.com - (no subject)
sebastienne.livejournal.com - (no subject)
sebastienne.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ayaron.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ayaron.livejournal.com - (no subject)
vampire-kitten.livejournal.com - (no subject)
deathbyshinies.livejournal.com - (no subject)
deathbyshinies.livejournal.com - (no subject)
deathbyshinies.livejournal.com - (no subject)
deathbyshinies.livejournal.com - (no subject)
vampire-kitten.livejournal.com - (no subject)- (Anonymous) - (no subject)
deathbyshinies.livejournal.com - (no subject)
dreamstothesky.livejournal.com - (no subject)
dreamstothesky.livejournal.com - (no subject)
robot-mel.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ayaron.livejournal.com - (no subject)
liminereid.livejournal.com - (no subject)
subservient-son.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ayaron.livejournal.com - (no subject)
deathbyshinies.livejournal.com - (no subject)
potatofiend.livejournal.com - Warning! Comment unrelated to post!
sebastienne.livejournal.com - Re: Warning! Comment unrelated to post!
potatofiend.livejournal.com - Re: Warning! Comment unrelated to post!
lil-shepherd.livejournal.com - (no subject)
hildabeast.livejournal.com - (no subject)
Style Credit
- Base style: Nouveau Oleanders by
- Theme: Art Deco by
- Resources: OpenClipart
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 05:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 06:41 am (UTC)I despair, a little bit, that such a great development is being cast by the BBC, and indeed by newly published books, in such a negative, "political correctness gone mad!!" kind of way. Even very good friends of mine have a knee-jerk "but it's against the natural order! think of the children!" reaction, simply because the concept is not something we're used to. But I think
a) "the natural order" involves trans and intersex people who do not fit a male/female binary, and I can't support a worldview that oppresses them
and
b) does it really matter how the person in the private, locked cubicle next door to yours identifies? If you don't want to see / be seen, don't use "toilets with urinals".
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 06:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 07:32 am (UTC)I thought the article was fairly balanced. They quoted from both sides of the debate. And the political correctness statement was clearly in quotes, from a spokesperson for the campus newspaper. I didn't read a negative cast to the report just the BBC saying this is happening, this is what the people in favour of it think, this is what the people against it think.
And I'm glad its happening too. Shame it didn't occur to the organisers of that LBGT rally in London some months back...
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 07:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 08:03 am (UTC)Although I sympathise with the girls who'd rather not go to the toilet in a bathroom that has boys in it, it's a taboo that needs breaking, and unfortunately it has to fall upon one generation or another to break it...
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 08:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 08:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 08:30 am (UTC)"Saying that political correctness has gone mad is itself not politically correct"
I couldn't take her seriously after that.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 08:34 am (UTC)I think unisex loos are a great idea! One thing I will say in slimelights favour is that all their loos are that way. It makes queing so much less of an issue! In Seattle there was a law that said if the women's line was more than 5 people long women were allowed to go and use the men's loos. Though most women were too shy to do this because they were worried they might see a guy peeing!
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 09:18 am (UTC)'Sorry, but I don't want to share the restroom with a guy, no matter which sex he identifies with. Equal rights means rights for me, too.'
This exemplifies the bigoted view prevalanet in society and it just makes me want to tell them how they're wrong in just so many ways!
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 10:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 11:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 11:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 11:46 am (UTC)What that the gender with, on average, larger bladders and fewer problems with wetting themselves in middle age have to wait as long as the gender that has to use the toilet more frequently and with greater urgency.
Gosh, that really would be terrible.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 12:24 pm (UTC)I would love to meet you one day vampire_kitten .
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 12:26 pm (UTC)Sorry, I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I'm just slightly confused: what exactly do you think is wrong with the "toilets with urinals" / "toilets without urinals" labelling system, given that unisex toilets work well enough in other countries, eg France? I agree that it's not ideal to thrust these changes on people, but I tend to think of it like decimalisation of money, ie, it's got to happen sometime, so this generation may as well be the one to suck it up and deal with the newness.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 12:36 pm (UTC)Because it's pretty stonkingly transphobic. Describes trans women as "men who think they are women". This is wrong because it's "men (+description)" (implying trans women are "really men"), when it should be "women (+description)", eg, "Women who were assigned male at birth" or, god forbid, "women".
There's a sodding media code that lays out basic standards of respect for reporting about trans people. I've lost count of the number of times that it has been broken since I've been aware of the issues.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 01:13 pm (UTC)I am still in favour of them but I do think thought on this issue is needed. If the loos are a single occupancy its not a problem. If its a larger loo with a number of cubicles and a sink area then such a thing as removing the outer doors can help, or perhaps installing cctv.
As for male objections to being seen peeing I do thing thought should be given to replacing the urinal with cubicles. The space requirement isn't that much greater and urinals are rarely used to maximun capacity anyway due to male reluctance to use one too close to another man anyway.
I read a number of years ago about a school which knocked the boys and girls loos into one large room with only cubicles. The sinks were placed as a double row in the centre. This had the effect of instantly stopping all the bullying and intimidation that used to happen all the time in the loos (mainly the boys but also the girls) due to the increased visibility of the common area and the fact that both boys and girls often change their behaviour when around the other sex, especially during puberty.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 01:16 pm (UTC)Would this nessisarily be more dangerous with a unisex toilet over a female only toilet. If it is infrequently visited/unobservable what is to stop a man going in there anyway?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 02:13 pm (UTC)Ah-ha, but they did it in Press Gang first!
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 02:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 02:36 pm (UTC)I suspect it's a self-perpetuating cycle - once the men's toilets get icky, they have less incentive to aim/ clean up after themselves so it just gets worse...
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 02:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 02:59 pm (UTC)But I was genuine about the sentiment though, I think you would be a fun debating partner. It's absolutely impossible to say this without sounding like a twat, but I'll say it anyway - I (really) do admire your feistiness.
Even though I think it is misguided. But makes for a colourful world, no?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 03:03 pm (UTC)That said, back in the day I used to get paid 3.75 an hour to clean toilets (amongst my other duties such as wiping tables and refillng straw holders) and the girls were always worse. Mind you, that was at McDonalds - possibly not an accurate cross section of society.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 03:20 pm (UTC)You are entirely right. However, we must consider the possibility of 'opportunity'. With the increased likelihood of a man being legitimately allowed into the space comes an increase in the percieved and actual likelihood of problems.
Again I say I am in favour of them. I just understand why some women are nervous of the concept and I hope the people organising this do their best to lesson any legitimate concerns.
:O)
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 10:20 pm (UTC):O)
no subject
Date: 2008-10-01 11:54 pm (UTC)Warning! Comment unrelated to post!
Date: 2008-10-03 10:56 am (UTC)Siobhan: "I met a librarian yesterday!"
Jack: "Did she turn to dust in the sun?"
S: "No. She was a goth though. Called Emma."
Me: *spits out drink* "Omg! Glasses? Big smile and great boobs?"
S: "Yes!"
Can there be two such boobular Gothy librarians in Oxford?
Re: Warning! Comment unrelated to post!
Date: 2008-10-03 12:16 pm (UTC)How on earth does "I met a librarian yesterday!" come up in conversation?
Re: Warning! Comment unrelated to post!
Date: 2008-10-03 12:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-06 11:39 am (UTC)Firstly, the labelling. It may be fine in a college where everyone reads and writes English, but writing 'Toilets with urinals' is not going to work anywhere where there are foreign or illiterate people.
The international signage is currently quite clear to everyone, whether they can or cannot write English (or Arabic, come to that.)
Secondly, culture. I suspect that this won't go down too well in the Islamic countries, or if you have Islamic students. British culture also regards going to the loo as a private issue - and mixed loos the same way as it regards mixed sex medical wards in hospitals. It is becoming clear that this is highly unpopular.
Thirdly, it's obvious you haven't worked in an office or a factory for a long period (or, for that matter, watched Cagney and Lacey.) Women often use the loos as a place where they can safely retreat to have a good cry, bitch about men etc. Often, there is nowhere else. You are removing that safe space. Also, many men are horrified by the sight of women putting on mascara, for some reason, and they don't want women to see them cry, either.
From a financial point of view, this means twice as many sanitary disposal bins to be installed and cleaned. That's a high extra cost. Have you never had a bleed through and needed to wash an item of underwear or even a skirt? Would you like to do it with a man watching? Would a man like to watch you do it?
Even in places like France, with a different tradition, they are moving away from unisex loos, as the world becomes a more multicultural place.
I guess it comes down to who you want to offend the most!
no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 04:32 pm (UTC)