Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

[Grand Nicholia]

Yes.

So would you say that this is applicable in all situations, any situation whatsoever where there might be a conflict of interest between X, Y, and Z's comfort?

Only in gender related things.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Are you kidding me?
That's like saying "I love you" and "Burn in hell for eternity, spawn of Satan," are "roughly the same, just shorter."

Ok, I mistaken it for a another term. But yeah, his arguments are unusable. (I'm tired, give me a break.)

If you're tired, feel free to leave. It's no one's fault but your own if it impairs your ability to debate.

[Grand Nicholia]

Now that is just not even saying anything. Just promoting your cause without argument.

Hmm... I have a feeling someone else has been doing that lately... Two words, starts with a G...

Nope.

[Galloism]

Yes, which is why changing signs is good, but new construction can be more efficient.

Now that is just not even saying anything. Just promoting your cause without argument.

You said gendered bathrooms already exist. This is true, and given the costs of construction and remodeling, it's probably not reasonable to redesign the space unless you were going to do a major remodel anyway, which is why I've suggested in this thread just making both bathrooms unisex. It's cheap, it's easy, it solves load balancing issues, it solves transgender issues, and it solves minor child issues.

Like directing women to the bathroom only a few feet away from the one with the giant line that used to be marked "Men's".

In that situation you would direct men to shorter men's line. Also, that, "used to be" is just self advertising your cause, AGAIN!

Well, in what I said, I was talking about a giant women's line, but if you want to go with men's that's fine too.

Hypothetically, there is no shorter men's line. All the men's bathrooms have giant lines, and all the women's bathrooms are basically empty.

Also, the final frontier.

Shamelessly not putting an argument.

You just said "space". How am I supposed to argue with that?

Argue with this:

Rumpelstiltskin.

Usually where bathroom overcrowding occurs, it's at a venue that people don't want to leave in search of a bathroom. Also, making people walk very long distances while needing to pee is kind of cruel when there's an unused bathroom only a few feet away.

Well, if the door to the next store is like maybe two more feet away, no problem.

And if the next venue is half a mile? Or hell, let's make it easy, 500 feet. You going to make a woman who desperately needs to pee walk 500 feet to hopefully find a bathroom without a line at some place that may or may not be open, and may or may not have a line, when there's an unused restroom five feet away?

That's cruel. You know walking makes you have to pee more, right?

Architectural design is very specific. There's no "unused space" they just say "oh, well we haven't put anything in that spot yet - let's make it a bathroom." They design the entire floor plan including bathrooms, where bathrooms are of a specific size predicting a specific amount of foot traffic.

Okay, but multiple bathrooms can fit in small locations.

Sure, but as long as the bathrooms are gendered, if the clientelle is not evenly split by gender, you're going to have lines at ALL the men's bathrooms and none of the women's, or vice versa. It doesn't matter if there are 2 bathrooms of 500 bathrooms, you'll still have the same problem. Half of the bathrooms will have huge lines, and half of them will be empty, because you are artificially adjusting the load onto only half of the facilities.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So would you say that this is applicable in all situations, any situation whatsoever where there might be a conflict of interest between X, Y, and Z's comfort?

Only in gender related things.

Strictly gender specific? Or generally gender specific?

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Hmm... I have a feeling someone else has been doing that lately... Two words, starts with a G...

Nope.

Good lord. Take a minute, write an argument, and post a reply without just saying "Nope" or "That's not true" to everything we say. Please, for your sake as well as ours.

[Grand Nicholia]

Ok, I mistaken it for a another term. But yeah, his arguments are unusable. (I'm tired, give me a break.)

If you're tired, feel free to leave. It's no one's fault but your own if it impairs your ability to debate.

I refuse to leave. To leave is to admit defeat! And I go by the saying, 'you are not defeated until you admit defeat.' So I will not leave until I have found myself the winner.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

If you're tired, feel free to leave. It's no one's fault but your own if it impairs your ability to debate.

I refuse to leave. To leave is to admit defeat! And I go by the saying, 'you are not defeated until you admit defeat.' So I will not leave until I have found myself the winner.

You're getting too worked up over an obscure forum kid.

[Galloism]

So would you say that this is applicable in all situations, any situation whatsoever where there might be a conflict of interest between X, Y, and Z's comfort?

Only in gender related things.

There's a word for this... what is it...

Let me think...

[Grand Nicholia]

Only in gender related things.

Strictly gender specific? Or generally gender specific?

generally.

[Grand Nicholia]

I refuse to leave. To leave is to admit defeat! And I go by the saying, 'you are not defeated until you admit defeat.' So I will not leave until I have found myself the winner.

You're getting too worked up over an obscure forum kid.

A forum supported by lies! *dramatic music*

[Galloism]

You're getting too worked up over an obscure forum kid.

A forum supported by lies! *dramatic music*

That's called a Republican Debate.

Do you know where you are?

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

You're getting too worked up over an obscure forum kid.

A forum supported by lies! *dramatic music*

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Strictly gender specific? Or generally gender specific?

generally.

So, in the case of X_y and Y_x wherein X and Y are the gender of the persons, and _x and _y is a random characteristic, would it be fine for the business to segregate facilities based on either person Y_x's Y or _x value if X_y feels uncomfortable?

[Nilla Wayfarers]

You're getting too worked up over an obscure forum kid.

A forum supported by lies! *dramatic music*

Okay, I'm done with you. I'm sorry, but after repeatedly ignored requests for you to state your argument, and baseless ignorance of actual claims, I feel like I'm wasting far too much time on you just to see my number of posts go up. If you feel like actually arguing, go ahead. Otherwise, I suggest you stop insulting the forum and its members.

[Gim]

If you're tired, feel free to leave. It's no one's fault but your own if it impairs your ability to debate.

I refuse to leave. To leave is to admit defeat! And I go by the saying, 'you are not defeated until you admit defeat.' So I will not leave until I have found myself the winner.

Just don't get carried away into thinking this is a verbal crusade.

[Dyakovo]

Ok, I mistaken it for a another term. But yeah, his arguments are unusable. (I'm tired, give me a break.)

If you're tired, feel free to leave. It's no one's fault but your own if it impairs your ability to debate.

Are you sure about that?
I mean, sure, generally that's true...

[Grand Nicholia]

You said gendered bathrooms already exist. This is true, and given the costs of construction and remodeling, it's probably not reasonable to redesign the space unless you were going to do a major remodel anyway, which is why I've suggested in this thread just making both bathrooms unisex. It's cheap, it's easy, it solves load balancing issues, it solves transgender issues, and it solves minor child issues.

Well, in what I said, I was talking about a giant women's line, but if you want to go with men's that's fine too.

Hypothetically, there is no shorter men's line. All the men's bathrooms have giant lines, and all the women's bathrooms are basically empty.

Well, we evaluate some things, and open up some employee only bathrooms.

You just said "space". How am I supposed to argue with that?

Argue with this:

Rumpelstiltskin.

You're smart , too smart.

And if the next venue is half a mile? Or hell, let's make it easy, 500 feet. You going to make a woman who desperately needs to pee walk 500 feet to hopefully find a bathroom without a line at some place that may or may not be open, and may or may not have a line, when there's an unused restroom five feet away?

Only if the other store is CLOSE! 500 feet is not close! I am talking about a mall, or similar.

That's cruel. You know walking makes you have to pee more, right?

Addressed.

Sure, but as long as the bathrooms are gendered, if the clientelle is not evenly split by gender, you're going to have lines at ALL the men's bathrooms and none of the women's, or vice versa. It doesn't matter if there are 2 bathrooms of 500 bathrooms, you'll still have the same problem. Half of the bathrooms will have huge lines, and half of them will be empty, because you are artificially adjusting the load onto only half of the facilities.

So? Very raely will that happen. Lets say this is an office building. 60% percent men. There are 1,000 workers and 120 bathrooms. For some reason, all men's bathrooms have 20 men at them. Now let's say, they decided to add 1 unisex bathroom. thus reducing every line to 10. This shows that these three bathrooms can coexist. No need to get rid of mens and womens.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

If you're tired, feel free to leave. It's no one's fault but your own if it impairs your ability to debate.

Are you sure about that?
I mean, sure, generally that's true...

Sorry, reading that again, I realize it sounds wrong.
I mean that if your ability to debate is impaired, its only one's own fault for ignoring that and continuing anyway.

[Grand Nicholia]

A forum supported by lies! *dramatic music*

Okay, I'm done with you. I'm sorry, but after repeatedly ignored requests for you to state your argument, and baseless ignorance of actual claims, I feel like I'm wasting far too much time on you just to see my number of posts go up. If you feel like actually arguing, go ahead. Otherwise, I suggest you stop insulting the forum and its members.

Really? I just posted another argument. Check my most recent post. And in reality, I had it with everyone else. But I am not done.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Snip

Who are you even quoting?

[Grand Nicholia]

Snip

Who are you even quoting?

You.

[Gim]

Snip

Who are you even quoting?

I'm on mobile, so I could not post an image saying how one digs more and more and the hole got deeper.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Who are you even quoting?

You.

Mhm. Click where it says "wrote" in my post.
I didn't say anything you quoted there.
Try again.

[Grand Nicholia]

You.

Mhm. Click where it says "wrote" in my post.
I didn't say anything you quoted there.
Try again.

It shows up as I quoted your post exactly. This is odd.