# In All-Gender Restrooms, the Signs Reflect the Times



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Before the Whitney Museum of American Art moved to its new location in Lower Manhattan, it hosted a discussion about what it means for a museum to be a safe and welcoming space.

Providing restrooms for everyone on the gender spectrum was near the top of the list.

âWe invited artists of all gender identifications in,â said Danielle Linzer, the director of access and community programs, âand we heard loud and clear that it was something they really needed access to. Rather than being euphemistic, we decided to be direct.â

The signs at the new building say âAll Gender Restroom,â and Ms. Linzer has observed women wondering aloud, âYou mean I can go in the menâs room?â

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/s...ll-gender.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

The language in that article honestly makes me angry. "Holding it in until they get bladder infections." "Pee in peace." Talk about sensationalism. 

The logic just doesn't makes sense. Let's talk about work, and other places that are forced to build restrooms with large accommodations. If we're all going to be expected to use the same bathroom, and that is supposed to be "no big deal" and we should all be okay with whoever happens to be in there with us, then tell me why it isn't okay for the transgender to just accommodate the rest of us and go in the restrooms they are supposed to use now. Most of us would rather not drop our loads in front of the opposite sex. It's no big deal right? They should be comfortable dropping a load with whoever as an audience. Because it makes them feel bad about their physiology when they're forced to go into the restroom with the wrong sign on the door? Guess what... Every time they take a shower....THERE IT IS.

Edit: I mean seriously. If I were a single guy, conducting the porcelain symphony after last night's chili just isn't something I would feel like doing in front of all the ladies. Nothing says "wanna go out sometime" like "ttthhhhhppppfffffAAAAAAARTSQUIIIRT." God. Give me break.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wiscto said:


> The language in that article honestly makes me angry. "Holding it in until they get bladder infections." "Pee in peace." Talk about sensationalism.
> 
> The logic just doesn't makes sense. Let's talk about work, and other places that are forced to build restrooms with large accommodations. If we're all going to be expected to use the same bathroom, and that is supposed to be "no big deal" and we should all be okay with whoever happens to be in there with us, then tell me why it isn't okay for the transgender to just accommodate the rest of us, most of whom would rather not drop our loads in front of the opposite sex. It's no big deal right? They should be comfortable dropping a load with whoever as an audience. Because it makes them feel bad about their physiology when they're forced to go into the restroom with the wrong sign on the door? Guess what... Every time they take a shower....THERE IT IS.


I didn't see where ALL bathrooms are gender-free, but there must and/or will be single user gender free bathrooms. I based it on this: "Part of the reason is legal. Seattle, Berkeley, Santa Fe, Austin and Philadelphia are among the cities that have passed laws requiring _single-user all-gender restrooms_. Philadelphia has an online Gotta Go Guide showing the location of such facilities, and there&#8217;s an app, Refuge Restrooms, that does the same nationwide."

And females do get bladder infections from "holding it" quite easily.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


>


Oh.The.Drama. It would hysterical if a large segment of the population didn't believe it was true. 

The entire US brought down by a bathroom issue...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I didn't see where ALL bathrooms are gender-free, but there are single user gender free bathrooms. I based it on this: "Part of the reason is legal. Seattle, Berkeley, Santa Fe, Austin and Philadelphia are among the cities that have passed laws requiring _single-user all-gender restrooms_. Philadelphia has an online Gotta Go Guide showing the location of such facilities, and there&#8217;s an app, Refuge Restrooms, that does the same nationwide."
> 
> And females do get bladder infections from "holding it" quite easily.


Right so don't hold it.... It's kind of silly to hold it just because the sign on the door says you have the same parts as the other people in there. It really is. I've used the ladies room before out of pure necessity. I'm obviously not assigned to that room so I got permission and left some ladies out front to guard. If I can go through all that trouble, they can walk into a restroom they're not even going to be yelled at for using to avoid getting a bladder infection for christsake. 

And yes, there is a movement toward turning all restrooms gender neutral, so that no one ever has to feel left out, or stand there holding it while that unisex/gender neutral/all parts welcome here single serve bathroom is occupied. I guarantee you the next move after getting gender blind restrooms single serve restrooms installed, people will be upset about how unfair that is and how humiliating it is to have to stand there holding it when there were perfectly good restrooms available with the wrong signs on the outside.

I feel bad that people feel bad... But honestly this is just crazy to me.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Well, at least the long line to get into the ladies room will be shorter ...

Just wait when a young girl walks into a rest room where a man is using a urinal, comes back out and says "the man exposed himself to me" ... was that a sexual assault on the little girl or was he just going to the bathroom?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wiscto said:


> Right so don't hold it.... It's kind of silly to hold it just because the sign on the door says you have the same parts as the other people in there. It really is. I've used the ladies room before out of pure necessity. I'm obviously not assigned to that room so I got permission and left some ladies out front to guard. If I can go through all that trouble, they can walk into a restroom they're not even going to be yelled at for using to avoid getting a bladder infection for christsake.
> 
> And yes, there is a movement toward turning all restrooms gender neutral, so that no one ever has to feel left out, or stand there holding it while that unisex/gender neutral/all parts welcome here single serve bathroom is occupied.


Where did you read about a "movement" to turn ALL restrooms gender neutral? I haven't read anything remotely like that, and I read everything I see about gay and transgender issues. 

Many places already have single user, gender free bathrooms, they are labeled as "family" usually.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> Well, at least the long line to get into the ladies room will be shorter ...
> 
> Just wait when a young girl walks into a rest room where a man is using a urinal, comes back out and says "the man exposed himself to me" ... was that a sexual assault on the little girl or was he just going to the bathroom?


Which is exactly why there will never be _only_ gender free bathrooms. There will be gender free bathrooms in addition to gendered ones.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Well leave it to the artsy-fartsy set to take WalMart's "family restroom", change the sign and call it a revelation.

There are some practical advantages to "solo" bathrooms, though. When a man comes in to clean and service a conventional ladies "multi user" restroom, it is shut down and vice versa for a woman cleaning the mens. But with "onesy" restrooms, only one at a time would be out of service. And one stinky overflowing toilet has been known to shut down a whole restroom, nobody wants to go in there while is it stinking and flooding, or while it is being fixed. Plus the original concept - small children - so dad doesn't have to take a little girl into the mens room, or invade the ladies room. And ditto for mom with a small boy. 

So there are some good practical reasons for individual public bathrooms besides peace of mind for "gender minorities". It would not bother me if "onesy's" became the norm. They should install the automatic seats though!


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Gender free prisons are next.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

FarmerKat said:


> Well, at least the long line to get into the ladies room will be shorter ...
> 
> Just wait when a young girl walks into a rest room where a man is using a urinal, comes back out and says "the man exposed himself to me" ... was that a sexual assault on the little girl or was he just going to the bathroom?


We have unspecified gender washrooms in Canada, simply labeled washrooms and some designated as family washrooms. 

We see the unspecified washrooms in a lot of our new hospitals and offices so they're just individual units without urinals. 

I think that even if they had stalls and no urinals, it could be workable.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh.The.Drama. It would hysterical if a large segment of the population didn't believe it was true.
> 
> The entire US brought down by a bathroom issue...


I'm guessing you don't use too many gas station bathrooms?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did you read about a "movement" to turn ALL restrooms gender neutral? I haven't read anything remotely like that, and I read everything I see about gay and transgender issues.
> 
> Many places already have single user, gender free bathrooms, they are labeled as "family" usually.


It's the new thing in Sweden and Norway. No gender distinction. And Americans on the extreme left follow Scandinavia's lead. http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...nder_neutral_pronoun_causes_controversy_.html


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wiscto said:


> It's the new thing in Sweden and Norway. No gender distinction. And Americans on the extreme left follow Scandinavia's lead. http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...nder_neutral_pronoun_causes_controversy_.html


Thanks. I thought you meant it was something in the works here in the US.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> I'm guessing you don't use too many gas station bathrooms?


Not unless I absolutely have to. Most are vile. :shudder:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

wr said:


> We have unspecified gender washrooms in Canada, simply labeled washrooms and some designated as family washrooms.


This is the USA. Just saying we are not Canada.~!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmerKat said:


> Well, at least the long line to get into the ladies room will be shorter ...
> 
> Just wait when a young girl walks into a rest room where a man is using a urinal, comes back out and says "the man exposed himself to me" ... was that a sexual assault on the little girl or was he just going to the bathroom?


A gender neutral restroom isn't likly to have urinals


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> This is the USA. Just saying we are not Canada.~!


They are all of the US too! They're usually called "family" restrooms. They are in many retail stores and malls.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

My bathroom at home is gender neutral and single occupancy.
At work, we have a mens, a ladies, and the one in my office is unspecified...again, one at a time.
If it's one at a time, I don't care what they call it or who uses it.
I don't think boys and girls should be using the same restroom at the same time though, and boy parts shouldn't be showering with girl parts until they are consenting adults.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> They are all of the US too! They're usually called "family" restrooms. They are in many retail stores and malls.


Ya and MOST if not all are ONE AT A TIME Usage ~!! Don't post that both sexes can USE THEM at the Same time~! And i hav been in may restaurants where there is ONLY ONE also. But ONE person ONLY can use its~! Big Difference. HUGE difference~!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Ya and MOST if not all are ONE AT A TIME Usage ~!! *Don't post that both sexes can USE THEM at the Same time*~! And i hav been in may restaurants where there is ONLY ONE also. But ONE person ONLY can use its~! Big Difference. HUGE difference~!


Nearly every one of her post clearly states the term "*single user*", as does the OP article

The only ones still talking about multiple users are the ones complaining about the whole concept
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/s...ll-gender.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1


> Part of the reason is legal. Seattle, Berkeley, Santa Fe, Austin and Philadelphia are among the cities that have passed laws requiring* single-user* all-gender restrooms. Philadelphia has an online Gotta Go Guide showing the location of such facilities, and thereâs an app, Refuge Restrooms, that does the same nationwide.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A gender neutral restroom isn't likly to have urinals


Would that not be offensive to men who wish to use a urinal? Would they not feel excluded?

It seems that the current pressure is not just for single user restrooms, that those pushing this agenda want ALL restrooms gender-less. As it has been pointed out, most places today have a single user "family" restroom. Since that is the case, it should not be an issue. So obviously to some that is not enough. 

I absolutely have no issue with single room bathrooms. In fact, when I am with my kids I prefer them. I do not feel completely comfortable with my 7 year old boy going to a public restroom by himself. If it is a small, uncrowded place, then he goes in the men's room by himself. But in crowded places with many stalls or places that have restrooms with two exits, I do not think it is safe. Same thing for DH sending our 5 year old daughter by herself to ladies room. In addition to that, DD is still small enough that there are sinks, towel dispensers, etc. that she simply cannot reach.

A local public pool where we go created a family locker room after someone complained about DH taking DD (then 4 years old) into the men's room. (Where was he supposed to go? To the ladies' lockers? I was working at the time and was not with them.) Since there is only one, the families have to coordinate using it but it is better than nothing.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> This is the USA. Just saying we are not Canada.~!


I was politely pointing something out and I happen to know you have them in the US as well because I've traveled quite extensively in your country and used them on occasion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I really don't see what the commotion is all about.... Most Americans have been using gender nutral bathrooms in their own homes for years! My Yvonne has recently purchased a small warehouse which was just empty space and she has built an office and bathroom for use by employees. I am quite happy that it's equipped with special features like grab bars making it usable by those with physical imparments and its gender neutral as well. Just like at home.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmerKat said:


> *Would that not be offensive* to men who wish to use a urinal? Would they not feel excluded?
> 
> It seems that the current pressure is not just for single user restrooms, that those pushing this agenda want ALL restrooms gender-less. As it has been pointed out, most places today have a single user "family" restroom. Since that is the case, it should not be an issue. So obviously to some that is not enough.
> 
> ...


No, because most men don't bend over backwards looking for foolish reasons to act offended. 

If they feel "offended" they can pee in the sink and pretend it's their own private urinal 

It's simple economics not to use a urinal if half of the population can't use it.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Do I detect a hint of troll?

A story about single-user, gender-neutral bathrooms is a non-story. Like Corny said, we each have one in our homes. They're @ DH's clinic/hospital complex and have been for some time. Sign simply says 'restroom'. What's the big deal? :shrug:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Do I detect a hint of troll?
> 
> A story about single-user, gender-neutral bathrooms is a non-story. Like Corny said, we each have one in our homes. They're @ DH's clinic/hospital complex and have been for some time. Sign simply says 'restroom'. What's the big deal? :shrug:


Ya really, nobody has once questioned those multiuser restrooms where ONLY one party goes in at a time. And there is a LOCK on the door at that.
Nobody cares a flip about THOSE kind of things that are very common place..~!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Do I detect a hint of troll?
> 
> A story about single-user, gender-neutral bathrooms is a non-story. Like Corny said, we each have one in our homes. They're @ DH's clinic/hospital complex and have been for some time. Sign simply says 'restroom'. What's the big deal? :shrug:


How am I trolling if people don't actually read the article? I think you're trying just a bit too hard.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, because most men don't bend over backwards looking for foolish reasons to act offended.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If we classify our home office as our established place of business, we have to upgrade our gender neutral bathroom to meet health & safety regulations and those urinals are awful expensive.


----------



## oldasrocks (Oct 27, 2006)

In the public restrooms in Taiwan there are urinals and stalls. The stalls have walls from ceiling to floor so no way for a peeping tom. The women walk behind the men to get to the stalls. In one market place and one park the urinals were on the outside wall. I felt real funny using them.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> How am I trolling if people don't actually read the article? I think you're trying just a bit too hard.


If it makes you feel better I think it's pretty obvious that you're not trolling. People here seem to think that disliking your opinion is the same thing as you trolling.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

So God created man in His image. Male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

I see two genders here. Am I missing something?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

The article is a typical example of how liberals screw things up.

Rather than just putting a simple-to-understand sign on restrooms, they have to go to the extreme and call them 'gender neutral', 'all gender', etc. 

Of all the signs below, the one on the lower left is simple to understand and doesn't incorporate controversial liberal lingo.










Why intentionally try to make an issue out of a non-issue?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> The article is a typical example of how liberals screw things up.
> 
> Rather than just putting a simple-to-understand sign on restrooms, they have to go to the extreme and call them 'gender neutral', 'all gender', etc.
> 
> ...


I'm beginning to think there's something to that idea there's too many people on the planet. Obviously the ones fixated on PC BS, etc. need to be separated from the herd.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Darren said:


> I'm beginning to think there's something to that idea there's too many people on the planet. Obviously the ones fixated on PC BS, etc. need to be separated from the herd.


They absolutely don't get it. 

It's like coming out as gay, particularly in the media.....and then wondering why people reject or criticize them. It's not the fact that they're gay that turns people off, it's the fact they feel the need to scream it from the rooftops. Be gay and shut up. Nobody cares or wants to know.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You got that right. Why shove this stuff in peoples faces and the media then Eats things up like that. Headlines galore. WHO CARES. Just be done with it and get on with life. Let it be. Quit bring up little kid bits here and there cause it don't mean a thing but trolling for attention.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

We are current with the times, we have a clump of bushes outside that are gender inclusive. There is something so natural about the wind whistling through ...... the leaves , ya the leaves.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> They absolutely don't get it.
> 
> It's like coming out as gay, particularly in the media.....and then wondering why people reject or criticize them. It's not the fact that they're gay that turns people off, it's the fact they feel the need to scream it from the rooftops. Be gay and shut up. Nobody cares or wants to know.



Why does the media go to so much trouble trying to out people?

Is there some need to prove that John Travolta or any other actor is gay, if they don't want to be outed?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> You got that right. Why shove this stuff in peoples faces and the media then Eats things up like that. Headlines galore. WHO CARES. Just be done with it and get on with life. Let it be. Quit bring up little kid bits here and there cause it don't mean a thing but trolling for attention.


Is that what you're doing when you post threads that you care about? Or are you just lashing out right now because someone said something you don't agree with and it upsets you?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> You got that right. Why shove this stuff in peoples faces and the media then Eats things up like that. Headlines galore. WHO CARES. Just be done with it and get on with life. Let it be. Quit bring up little kid bits here and there cause it don't mean a thing but trolling for attention.



Mods are quite capable of handling these things and accusing members of trolling is considered insulting another member.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmerDale said:


> So God created man in His image. Male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
> 
> I see two genders here. Am I missing something?


Yup you are definitely missing something. Real life.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I think we need way more gender neutral bathrooms. Blows my mind how upset people are getting these days over bathrooms. You'd think the Apocalypse is coming and it will be heralded by a transgender person in a bathroom leaving some little girl mentally devastated for the rest of her life because she saw them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> I'm beginning to think there's something to that idea there's too many people on the planet. Obviously the ones fixated on PC BS, etc. need to be separated from the herd.


And killed? Or just locked away? To which end were you referring?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> They absolutely don't get it.
> 
> It's like coming out as gay, particularly in the media.....and then wondering why people reject or criticize them. It's not the fact that they're gay that turns people off, it's the fact they feel the need to scream it from the rooftops. Be gay and shut up. Nobody cares or wants to know.


Oh, you mean like when christians try to force their religion on non believers or practitioners of a different sect or religion? Like that? I agree that very very few care or want to know. Be christian and shut up. Perfect! :spinsmiley:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

FarmerKat said:


> Well, at least the long line to get into the ladies room will be shorter ...
> 
> Just wait when a young girl walks into a rest room where a man is using a urinal, comes back out and says "the man exposed himself to me" ... was that a sexual assault on the little girl or was he just going to the bathroom?


This whole idea that one must bow down and kiss the boots of these out of their minds liberals is getting WAY out of hand. I don't care WHAT the rest is like leave the USA just the way it was and is. Go to some other corner of the world and poison their minds. Not Americans~!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> This whole idea that one must bow down and kiss the boots of these out of their minds liberals is getting WAY out of hand. I don't care WHAT the rest is like leave the USA just the way it was and is. Go to some other corner of the world and poison their minds. Not Americans~!


Yes. lets leave the USA just the way it is. Liberal leaning.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wr said:


> Why does the media go to so much trouble trying to out people?
> 
> Is there some need to prove that John Travolta or any other actor is gay, if they don't want to be outed?


I'm talking about people who used the media, making public *announcements* about their sexual preference. I can provide a list if you'd be interested.

I'm talking about people who, even though those around them, in their personal lives, knew they were gay because they made no secret of it, felt the need to announce it in front of cameras to the rest of the world.

The rest of the world might not want to know.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, you mean like when christians try to force their religion on non believers or practitioners of a different sect or religion? Like that? I agree that very very few care or want to know. Be christian and shut up. Perfect! :spinsmiley:


Well, then. 

I guess since it is now acceptable (and encouraged) for people to proclaim their sexuality to the world, it's perfectly acceptable for people to proclaim their religious beliefs publicly. Yes?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> I think we need way more gender neutral bathrooms. Blows my mind how upset people are getting these days over bathrooms. You'd think the Apocalypse is coming and it will be heralded by a transgender person in a bathroom leaving some little girl mentally devastated for the rest of her life because she saw them.


So you wouldn't have a problem with your little girl seeing a strange man's junk in a restroom? Would you send her in there alone?


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Txsteader said:


> The article is a typical example of how liberals screw things up.
> 
> Rather than just putting a simple-to-understand sign on restrooms, they have to go to the extreme and call them 'gender neutral', 'all gender', etc.
> 
> ...


I agree with you about the sign. The one you mention is already used all over the country. Who has time to read the one in the middle?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

The signs don't reflect the times, they reflect the liberal mentality of having to make a monumental issue out of something insignificant. I can't explain the logic behind it except perhaps to make themselves _feel_ 'special'.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> The signs don't reflect the times, they reflect the liberal mentality of having to make a monumental issue out of something insignificant. I can't explain the logic *behind it except perhaps to make themselves feel 'special'.*


*
*

Is that the go to answer now. Don't like that people are fighting for their rights so put them down.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> So you wouldn't have a problem with your little girl seeing a strange man's junk in a restroom? Would you send her in there alone?


Once more, the only ones talking about gender neutral restrooms for multiple users are those opposed to the whole premise.

The OP is about *SINGLE USER* facilities, and the various signs.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> [/B]
> 
> Is that the go to answer now. Don't like that people are fighting for their rights so put them down.


Fighting for their rights? Is that what you call all those silly, unnecessary signs? Like I said, the one sign in the lower left corner was sufficient. People aren't morons that need a bunch of liberal lingo to 'explain' it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Fighting for their rights? Is that what you call all those silly, unnecessary signs?


Some rights are small. Some people call them silly.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Well, then.
> 
> I guess since it is now acceptable (and encouraged) for people to proclaim their sexuality to the world, it's perfectly acceptable for people to proclaim their religious beliefs publicly. Yes?


Are you saying that it's something new? With a straight face? Seriously? :hysterical: 

Like christians haven't pushed their religion on others for centuries. What a hoot.

This is off topic. Perhaps some should not throw stones, glass houses and all that...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> And killed? Or just locked away? To which end were you referring?


There's too many people that made it to the top of Mazlow's hierarchy only to shove their head up their ass. They need to keep their type of self actuation to themselves. I would suggest enormous amounts of scorn and ridicule to help them along to the realization that their misguided "superior" notions aren't.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that it's something new? With a straight face? Seriously? :hysterical:
> 
> Like christians haven't pushed their religion on centuries for centuries. What a hoot.


Sounds like by what is happening today they shoal have REALLY PUSHED EVEN HARDER. LOL


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> The signs don't reflect the times, *they reflect the liberal mentality of having to make a monumental issue out of something insignificant.* I can't explain the logic behind it except perhaps to make themselves _feel_ 'special'.


You got that right. I wonder if the correlation with self identified liberalism is close to 100%.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> There's too many people that made it to the top of Mazlow's hierarchy only to shove their head up their ass. They need to keep their type of self actuation to themselves. I would suggest enormous amounts of scorn and ridicule to help them along to the realization that their misguided "superior" notions aren't.


And your notions are "superior"? In whose opinion? Yours? 

You didn't answer the question. You made a bold statement, which will it be? Death or containment for those that don't kowtow to your beliefs?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Ridicule and scorn does separate individuals. Ostracism works. Separation is containment in this case.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> Ridicule and scorn does separate individuals. Ostracism works. Separation is containment in this case.


Sure. Whatever you say... now.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that it's something new? With a straight face? Seriously? :hysterical:
> 
> Like christians haven't pushed their religion on others for centuries. What a hoot.
> 
> This is off topic. Perhaps some should not throw stones, glass houses and all that...


Dear Pixie. I asked if it's now *acceptable* for people to proclaim their religious beliefs publicly. I must assume it is, since the real issue is tolerance and acceptance.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Dear Pixie. I asked if it's now *acceptable* for people to proclaim their religious beliefs publicly. I must assume it is, since the real issue is tolerance and acceptance.


And I'll say again, it's been done for centuries. Apparently it's been _acceptable_ to christians for all that time, yes? Bullies always think their way is the only acceptable way...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

oldasrocks said:


> In one market place and one park the urinals were on the outside wall. I felt real funny using them.


In this country, you'd be registered as a sex offender for peeing in public


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> And I'll say again, it's been done for centuries. Apparently it's been _acceptable_ to christians for all that time, yes? Bullies always think their way is the only acceptable way...


Yes, you do


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Yup you are definitely missing something. Real life.


Real life is a gender?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yes. lets leave the USA just the way it is. Liberal leaning.


Liberal leaning until the whole thing is a ghetto or a burned out wasteland?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Liberal leaning until the whole thing is a ghetto or a burned out wasteland?


Yes, I get that you believe that.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> And I'll say again, it's been done for centuries. Apparently it's been _acceptable_ to christians for all that time, yes? Bullies always think their way is the only acceptable way...


Tolerance applies to the person being subjected, not the one doing to behavior. 

Do you show tolerance when someone says that they're gonna pray for you? Or do you get offended? Is stating that they're going to pray for you forcing you to submit to anything, to do anything, to accept anything?

Likewise, if people are supposed to be tolerant of other's sexual preferences/identities, shouldn't people also be tolerant of religious beliefs/expression? 

Or does tolerance only apply to those things that liberals deem tolerable?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> I'm talking about people who used the media, making public *announcements* about their sexual preference. I can provide a list if you'd be interested.
> 
> I'm talking about people who, even though those around them, in their personal lives, knew they were gay because they made no secret of it, felt the need to announce it in front of cameras to the rest of the world.
> 
> The rest of the world might not want to know.



Do you feel it's a loud and proud thing or just beating the media at their own game?

The media was full of rumour and speculation long before Jenner made any announcements.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Tolerance applies to the person being subjected, not the one doing to behavior.
> 
> Do you show tolerance when someone says that they're gonna pray for you? Or do you get offended? Is stating that they're going to pray for you forcing you to submit to anything, to do anything, to accept anything?
> 
> ...


So you say... It honestly depends on who says they'll pray for me and how they say it. Honestly and sincerely? I say, "thank you" and change the subject. Mocking and insincerely? I get mocking and sarcastic... pretty much in the way it was presented. 

I am tolerant about religious beliefs, as long as the person doesn't preach at me, tell me I'm going to hell, etc. I honestly never had a real problem with christians until I started interacting with those here on HT. All I've met in real life with tone down the rhetoric in order to be polite around a non believer, but the extremists here seem to take it as an affront and get ugly. 

I see TV preachers all the time, and they :gasp: preach. Since it doesn't apply to me, I :gasp: turn the channel. The same can be done with radio, print, and the internet. Don't like LGBT? Don't be LGBT, or listen/read about LGBT issues. Easy as pie.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wr said:


> Do you feel it's a loud and proud thing or just beating the media at their own game?
> 
> The media was full of rumour and speculation long before Jenner made any announcements.


I perceive it as loud and proud. 

Michael Sam.

Ellen Degeneres.

Robin Roberts.

Why is it that the majority who make public proclamations are in the media or sports industries? 

Hmm, isn't that queer?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Liberal leaning until the whole thing is a ghetto or a burned out wasteland?


Imagination is fun, isn't it?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> I perceive it as loud and proud.
> 
> Michael Sam.
> 
> ...


Because they are *celebrities*.
No one much cares if it's the guy down the street.

Do you even listen to some of your own questions?
The answers seem pretty obvious to me


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> (Insert low class picture here)


Is that your "christian" spirit?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Is that your "christian" spirit?


Not very "Christian" on your part either trying to Control Others now is it?
Tru to FORCE some antiquated ideal on the great masses of the USA, is not what I would call neat either. Let things be just as they were. Quit this we have have new laws to protect said people. The laws have ALWAYS been there in The Constitution quit running to the SC and LIBERAL Judges when you don't get YOUR WAY.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Not very "Christian" on your part either trying to Control Others now is it?
> Tru to FORCE some antiquated ideal on the great masses of the USA, is not what I would call neat either. *Let things be just as they were. Quit this we have have new laws to protect said people*. The laws have ALWAYS been there in The Constitution quit running to the SC and LIBERAL Judges when you don't get YOUR WAY.


Things change, they may even get better.  I think they already have.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> I'm talking about people who used the media, making public *announcements* about their sexual preference. I can provide a list if you'd be interested.
> 
> I'm talking about people who, even though those around them, in their personal lives, knew they were gay because they made no secret of it, felt the need to announce it in front of cameras to the rest of the world.
> 
> The rest of the world might not want to know.


Or simply beat the media at it's own game because they seem keen on it anyhow. 

The media spent a great number of years speculating and threatening to out Anderson Cooper and it is my understanding that he chose to out himself rather than watching tabloids make big money on speculation. 

Should any celebrity be forced into that position and should society feed tabloid behavior?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> So you wouldn't have a problem with your little girl seeing a strange man's junk in a restroom? Would you send her in there alone?


I only had boys. I sent them into the bathroom alone once they reached an appropriate age, prior to that either their father went in the Men's restroom with them or they went with me if he wasn't with us. They managed to survive the trauma of going into a women's restroom at a young age. Does this only affect little girls?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> I only had boys. I sent them into the bathroom alone once they reached an appropriate age, prior to that either their father went in the Men's restroom with them or they went with me if he wasn't with us. They managed to survive the trauma of going into a women's restroom at a young age. Does this only affect little girls?


Don't play dumb, we know you aren't. I'm sure you know that there are stalls in a womens restroom, while in the mens the urinals are in the open. So yes there is a difference in taking a little girl into a mens room.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> Don't play dumb, we know you aren't. I'm sure you know that there are stalls in a womens restroom, while in the mens the urinals are in the open. So yes there is a difference in taking a little girl into a mens room.


So you are saying a little girl will be permanently harmed by seeing dangly bits? Really? Now I don't spend any time in men's restrooms but I am going to take a wild guess here and assume that they don't wander around swinging said dangly bits in circles for all to see. They face wall, point at the urinal and unless you go looking over their shoulder you aren't going to see anything. Maybe I am wrong though. 

But now let's move on to that transgender man in the Women's bathroom. As you so helpfully pointed out in the Ladies we have stalls. So a little girl has zero chance of seeing dangly bits in the Ladies correct? So where is the trauma here? 

I am not playing dumb here I am just genuinely stumped. I can't figure out how little girls are going to get traumatised by transgender people in bathrooms.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> So you are saying a little girl will be permanently harmed by seeing dangly bits? Really? Now I don't spend any time in men's restrooms but I am going to take a wild guess here and assume that they don't wander around swinging said dangly bits in circles for all to see. They face wall, point at the urinal and unless you go looking over their shoulder you aren't going to see anything. Maybe I am wrong though.
> 
> But now let's move on to that transgender man in the Women's bathroom. As you so helpfully pointed out in the Ladies we have stalls. So a little girl has zero chance of seeing dangly bits in the Ladies correct? So where is the trauma here?
> 
> I am not playing dumb here I am just genuinely stumped. I can't figure out how little girls are going to get traumatised by transgender people in bathrooms.


Depends on the child whether or not they would be "traumatized" or merely robbed of some of their innocence. But at the height of a young girl who still needs to be accompanied to the bathroom, the offending dangly bits are at her eye level and good grief yes you can see more than you want to from a urinal. At one place I worked, we actually had to request a modesty panel for the men's room because the open door gave waaaay too much of a side view of whoever was at the first urinal. It became a safety issue - people were bumping into each other walking down that hall with their eyes down. So yes, just by walking past, there is more visible than you might think. 

No, a transgender man-to-woman would not be obvious in the typical women's bathroom, most people wouldn't know the difference if the person had any skill at all with makeup and wardrobe. And I never said they would, although I am arguing against "open" showering by a transgender male-to-female kid with the "natural" girls in the other thread. 

You probably didn't bother to read this whole long thread before posting, but if you had, you should have seen I posted very early that "solo" or single user restrooms in public places had a lot of merit. Better for families with small kids especially multiple kids. Doesn't shut down the whole poddy parade for cleaning, fixing an overflow, etc. And of course makes things more comfortable for the gender benders, too. I don't think every public place can devote the money and space to "solo" bathrooms but if they put in one in addition to the "multi user", a lot of different people would appreciate it. 

In the meantime, let's keep little girls out of the mens room. And nobody should complain if daddy accompanies a little girl into the ladies, because of the stalls.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Strangely enough I have used urinals for 50+ years and I think I have managed not to be robbed of my innocence. Seriously most of us men are pretty modest. And I strongly suspect if there was a young child in there with their parent we would be even more modest.

But also I was raised by my parents that the naked human body was ok, It's not a big deal, we all have one.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

I haven't read through the posts but wanted to add a situation I never gave much thought to until recently. My brother has Alzheimer's and his wife does not want to travel with him due to bathroom issues. If she goes in the women's room, she has to take him or he wonders off. To look at him you'd not know he has a problem so I'm sure he would draw attention standing around in the women's room. Also, he needs assistance so she doesn't want to go in the men's room. She is never sure if she can find a family bathroom or not. It's just one more thing she has to deal with.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Miss Kay said:


> I haven't read through the posts but wanted to add a situation I never gave much thought to until recently. My brother has Alzheimer's and his wife does not want to travel with him due to bathroom issues. If she goes in the women's room, she has to take him or he wonders off. To look at him you'd not know he has a problem so I'm sure he would draw attention standing around in the women's room. Also, he needs assistance so she doesn't want to go in the men's room. She is never sure if she can find a family bathroom or not. It's just one more thing she has to deal with.


I would have never thought of that. The poor dear. And he very well might not stand around the womens room, anyway, he might wander off on her. They forget what they are doing in the moment and go looking for something familiar, it seems like.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

keenataz said:


> Strangely enough I have used urinals for 50+ years and I think I have managed not to be robbed of my innocence. Seriously most of us men are pretty modest. And I strongly suspect if there was a young child in there with their parent we would be even more modest.
> 
> But also I was raised by my parents that the naked human body was ok, It's not a big deal, we all have one.


After a certain generation we were pretty much all taught that the human body is natural and OK. But we still don't run around naked outside of a designated "nudist" area either. It's been the practice forever to keep public places G rated. Or excuse me I guess the current PC speak is "family friendly". 

Yes most men are natural gentlemen with the right amount of modesty. However some of them are jerkholes who intentionally expose themselves.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

I attend Grange meetings in a Grange hall that was built in the 1880s. It has a single 'restroom' in the back that is a 'three-holer' facility.

It is not gender specific, up to three people can use the facility at a time. There are no 'stalls' or dividers. Just a bench seat with three holes, each hole has a toilet seat/lid.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yes, I get that you believe that.


Show me a ghetto or a city in decline, I'll show you a democrat stronghold


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wiscto said:


> Imagination is fun, isn't it?


Reality bites


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Things change, they may even get better.  I think they already have.


In what way have things got better?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> Don't play dumb, we know you aren't. I'm sure you know that there are stalls in a womens restroom, while in the mens the urinals are in the open. So yes there is a difference in taking a little girl into a mens room.


Who's playing?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> So you are saying a little girl will be permanently harmed by seeing dangly bits? Really? Now I don't spend any time in men's restrooms but I am going to take a wild guess here and assume that they don't wander around swinging said dangly bits in circles for all to see. They face wall, point at the urinal and unless you go looking over their shoulder you aren't going to see anything. Maybe I am wrong though.
> 
> But now let's move on to that transgender man in the Women's bathroom. As you so helpfully pointed out in the Ladies we have stalls. So a little girl has zero chance of seeing dangly bits in the Ladies correct? So where is the trauma here?
> 
> I am not playing dumb here I am just genuinely stumped. I can't figure out how little girls are going to get traumatised by transgender people in bathrooms.


If you had a little girl you'd feel different I'm sure.
What kind of pervert puts boys and girls in the same toilet?
I guess it takes different things to entertain some people


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

ET1 SS said:


> I attend Grange meetings in a Grange hall that was built in the 1880s. It has a single 'restroom' in the back that is a 'three-holer' facility.
> 
> It is not gender specific, up to three people can use the facility at a time. There are no 'stalls' or dividers. Just a bench seat with three holes, each hole has a toilet seat/lid.


Do boys and girls go in at the same time?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It's not that hard. If you have indoor plumbing, you use one room. If you have outdoor plumbing, you use the other. Why add an additional burden to tax payers or customers? Two bathrooms has worked perfectly fine for many decades. And will continue to work into the future unless these insane ideas that the left has get shoved down our throats.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Sure I'll play devils advocate. 

I remember many public events, where the line to the "Womens" restroom, was a mile long (so it seemed to them ) The women would look over in dismay, at the "Mens" restroom, that had no line whatsover. Open stalls galore! Wonder how many would have gladly voted for "genderless" restrooms at those times?

Not sure where we got our _toilet phobias_ from (I think I know), but future generations will laugh out loud, at the ridiculousness of them, while they use a _restroom_.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> It's not that hard. If you have indoor plumbing, you use one room. If you have outdoor plumbing, you use the other. *Why add an additional burden to tax payers or customers?* Two bathrooms has worked perfectly fine for many decades. And will continue to work into the future unless these insane ideas that the left has get shoved down our throats.


How is having only *one* bathroom adding to anyone's costs?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Reality bites


So I take it we're agreeing to disagree. ;-)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> In what way have things got better?


In my grandfathers lifetime there were several changes for the better. Electricity become commonplace in most Americans homes along with air conditioning. Telephones, air travel, the introduction of the automobile, radio, modern medical technology, that we take for granted today such as penicillin, cancer is no longer an automatic death sentence, when was the last polio outbreak or smallpox epidemic? We went from a 60 hour work week to 40 hours and the increased standard of living being affordable to anyone willing to show up for work relatively sober. Indoor plumbing bringing fresh disease free water into everyone's homes became the norm. Most of what we take for granted in our lives today was virtually non existent when he was born, it's no wonder all we have left to bellyache about is waiting our turn to use the crapper.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

It's all going to work out just fine! It's already been done anyway. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUavFaQwEw[/ame]




> âMen are generally pigs in restrooms, and women are nice and sensible,â the owner Dan Simons said. â


I used to work in a gas station, this is BS, in my experience.


----------

