Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

[Grand Nicholia]

Am I acting too smart for you?

No. What you are discussing is irrelevant to the topic.

How? I am discussing the problem he put forward.

[Ostroeuropa]

Please don't

Am I acting too smart for you?

Are you ACTING that way?
I think your performance needs some work.

[Grand Nicholia]

"Those 480 people would be served, on average, in 24 minutes [(480/60)*3)]. However, because timing is staggered in a stall by stall basis, the average finish time for that crowd under those conditions would be 25 minutes. This is why we can say that 500 people can be served, on average, in 25 minutes."

It feels like you tacked that on as a desperate defence.

On the three minutes thing, we must divide again. (Will post in another post.)

I'll give you a very small example. Tom, Alice, Bob, Frank, and Janice from accounting all want to use a bathroom with 3 stalls, serving one person per minute. On average, this will take 5 minutes.

Janice from accounting is in there for the full five minutes. She's not feeling well.

In the remaining two stalls, tom, bob, alice, and frank each take 2 1/2 minutes each.

Everyone's done in five minutes, and the average use time was three minutes each, despite five not being divisible by 3 (at small scales averages can vary grandly, but at larger scales it's very predictable).

Yes, but let's say TABF have 496 other friends and that bathroom number was multiplied to 60. And every friend had their special needs, and each took time varying from 1-100 minutes.

[Neutraligon]

Anyway to those that understand basic flow and what an average is. It is generally agreed that having one restroom that serves the entire population is more efficient then having two that serve only a part of the community, particularly when the different parts are highly uneven (Ie more men than women). While having one restroom is probably more efficient than having two (as shown by gallo's post about one room having more room due to not having the wall in between) Even two restrooms serving the entire population is more efficient, simply because all stalls and urinals would be used assuming the same number of stalls and urinals

[Alvecia]

No. What you are discussing is irrelevant to the topic.

How? I am discussing the problem he put forward.

The topic is

Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

The mathematics of whether or not 500 people could feasibly use three, 60 people bathrooms to do their business in 25 minutes does not contribute to this topic.

It could be men and women using unisex bathrooms.
It could be men using men only bathrooms.
It could be women using women only bathrooms.
It could be dogs using bushes.

This discussion does not apply to the topic at hand.

[Neutraligon]

One positive thing I see in his idea is that, from a purely monetary point of view, a unisex bathroom could be immensely cost effective.

Yeh. I also covered earlier how the absence of one could cause subtle sexism in business.
I know i've occasionally walked through the halls discussing work with people and we've had to segregate for a moment to pee and stuff.
But that doesn't stop the discussion among the same sex typically.

That's before you get into extra discussion value from lack of segregation, especially if queues are formed. It's miniscule financially, but it'll add up over time.

I expect it would also have hygienic implications from people now washing their fucking hands since the other sex can see them not do it. That also has financial implications, as well as public health ones.

We can add safety to it for single restrooms since people are less likely to attack or harm others in more utilized spaces. We can also point to the fact that families can now use the same restroom, thus single parents do not need to wait outside while their relatively young children use the restroom alone. Hell it could even help out handicapped individuals since significant others who are not of the same sex can be there to help if there is a problem. Not all places have family restrooms.

[Grand Nicholia]

One positive thing I see in his idea is that, from a purely monetary point of view, a unisex bathroom could be immensely cost effective.

Yeh. I also covered earlier how the absence of one could cause subtle sexism in business.
I know i've occasionally walked through the halls discussing work with people and we've had to segregate for a moment to pee and stuff.
But that doesn't stop the discussion among the same sex typically.

That's before you get into extra discussion value from lack of segregation, especially if queues are formed. It's miniscule financially, but it'll add up over time.

I expect it would also have hygienic implications from people now washing their fucking hands since the other sex can see them not do it. That also has financial implications, as well as public health ones.

In reality, segregated bathrooms do NOT cause sexism. Explain to me how it would, if it did.

But that adding up will be very slow. Desegregation would be minuscule, always.

And that last statement is just assumption.

[Grand Nicholia]

Yeh. I also covered earlier how the absence of one could cause subtle sexism in business.
I know i've occasionally walked through the halls discussing work with people and we've had to segregate for a moment to pee and stuff.
But that doesn't stop the discussion among the same sex typically.

That's before you get into extra discussion value from lack of segregation, especially if queues are formed. It's miniscule financially, but it'll add up over time.

I expect it would also have hygienic implications from people now washing their fucking hands since the other sex can see them not do it. That also has financial implications, as well as public health ones.

We can add safety to it for single restrooms since people are less likely to attack or harm others in more utilized spaces. We can also point to the fact that families can now use the same restroom, thus single parents do not need to wait outside while their relatively young children use the restroom alone.

There is a thing called family bathrooms. Where is your proof people are less likely to be attacked?

[Grand Nicholia]

Anyway to those that understand basic flow and what an average is. It is generally agreed that having one restroom that serves the entire population is more efficient then having two that serve only a part of the community, particularly when the different parts are highly uneven (Ie more men than women). While having one restroom is probably more efficient than having two (as shown by gallo's post about one room having more room due to not having the wall in between) Even two restrooms serving the entire population is more efficient, simply because all stalls and urinals would be used assuming the same number of stalls and urinals

Where is your proof for your "efficiency"?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yeh. I also covered earlier how the absence of one could cause subtle sexism in business.
I know i've occasionally walked through the halls discussing work with people and we've had to segregate for a moment to pee and stuff.
But that doesn't stop the discussion among the same sex typically.

That's before you get into extra discussion value from lack of segregation, especially if queues are formed. It's miniscule financially, but it'll add up over time.

I expect it would also have hygienic implications from people now washing their fucking hands since the other sex can see them not do it. That also has financial implications, as well as public health ones.

We can add safety to it for single restrooms since people are less likely to attack or harm others in more utilized spaces. We can also point to the fact that families can now use the same restroom, thus single parents do not need to wait outside while their relatively young children use the restroom alone.

The family aspect is also a good idea. Particularly if you have a single mom or dad, and their son or daughter need to use the bathroom. Instead of them going at it alone, parents can go in and supervise.

[Galloism]

I'll give you a very small example. Tom, Alice, Bob, Frank, and Janice from accounting all want to use a bathroom with 3 stalls, serving one person per minute. On average, this will take 5 minutes.

Janice from accounting is in there for the full five minutes. She's not feeling well.

In the remaining two stalls, tom, bob, alice, and frank each take 2 1/2 minutes each.

Everyone's done in five minutes, and the average use time was three minutes each, despite five not being divisible by 3 (at small scales averages can vary grandly, but at larger scales it's very predictable).

Yes, but let's say TABF have 496 other friends and that bathroom number was multiplied to 60. And every friend had their special needs, and each took time varying from 1-100 minutes.

If the average time was 3 minutes, they would all be done in 25 minutes (except that guy that's been in the bathroom for 1hr and 40mins - someone should check on him. He might be dead.)

[Grand Nicholia]

How? I am discussing the problem he put forward.

The topic is

Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

The mathematics of whether or not 500 people could feasibly use three, 60 people bathrooms to do their business in 25 minutes does not contribute to this topic.

It could be men and women using unisex bathrooms.
It could be men using men only bathrooms.
It could be women using women only bathrooms.
It could be dogs using bushes.

This discussion does not apply to the topic at hand.

Yes, but it is discussing something related to the topic.

[Grand Nicholia]

Yes, but let's say TABF have 496 other friends and that bathroom number was multiplied to 60. And every friend had their special needs, and each took time varying from 1-100 minutes.

If the average time was 3 minutes, they would all be done in 25 minutes (except that guy that's been in the bathroom for 1hr and 40mins - someone should check on him. He might be dead.)

Where is your source that the average is 3 minutes?

[Alvecia]

Yeh. I also covered earlier how the absence of one could cause subtle sexism in business.
I know i've occasionally walked through the halls discussing work with people and we've had to segregate for a moment to pee and stuff.
But that doesn't stop the discussion among the same sex typically.

That's before you get into extra discussion value from lack of segregation, especially if queues are formed. It's miniscule financially, but it'll add up over time.

I expect it would also have hygienic implications from people now washing their fucking hands since the other sex can see them not do it. That also has financial implications, as well as public health ones.

In reality, segregated bathrooms do NOT cause sexism. Explain to me how it would, if it did.

But that adding up will be very slow. Desegregation would be minuscule, always.

And that last statement is just assumption.

You would have been better just asking how they did. Now you've made the statement that

In reality, segregated bathrooms do NOT cause sexism

I would like to know how you know this.

[Neutraligon]

We can add safety to it for single restrooms since people are less likely to attack or harm others in more utilized spaces. We can also point to the fact that families can now use the same restroom, thus single parents do not need to wait outside while their relatively young children use the restroom alone.

There is a thing called family bathrooms. Where is your proof people are less likely to be attacked?

Tell me, where do most attacks happen? In places that are relatively not being used at the time of the attack, right? It is very rare for attacks to occur in heavily trafficked areas, and single unisex restrooms are more likely to be heavily trafficked that separate restrooms. The same holds for two separate restrooms that are unisex (ie restrooms that have simply had their signs changed to unisex). They are more likely to be heavily trafficked because people tend to even out lines (they go to the restroom that is not as heavily used).

Not all places have family restrooms.

[Conscentia]

In reality, segregated bathrooms do NOT cause sexism

I would like to know how you know this.

It is worth pointing out that one can't prove a null hypothesis.

Segregated bathrooms can be explained as a symptom of sexism, rather than a cause of it.

[Alvecia]

The topic is


The mathematics of whether or not 500 people could feasibly use three, 60 people bathrooms to do their business in 25 minutes does not contribute to this topic.

It could be men and women using unisex bathrooms.
It could be men using men only bathrooms.
It could be women using women only bathrooms.
It could be dogs using bushes.

This discussion does not apply to the topic at hand.

Yes, but it is discussing something related to the topic.

Just because something is related to the topic doesn't mean it is relevant to the topic

[Galloism]

If the average time was 3 minutes, they would all be done in 25 minutes (except that guy that's been in the bathroom for 1hr and 40mins - someone should check on him. He might be dead.)

Where is your source that the average is 3 minutes?

Honestly, because I did a tax planning strategy for a convention center one time, I had a copy of the contractor's notes. He used 3 minutes as an average in the stall (5 minutes in the bathroom) to justify the number of bathrooms given the amount of seating in the facility.

I have no idea if that's universal. It's just the only number I had.

In any case, whether it's 1 minute or 3 minutes or 40 minutes, it still doesn't matter. Unisex bathrooms are more efficient from a usage standpoint than gender segregated bathrooms because there will be no one waiting in line to use the restroom while restrooms sit unused.

[Alvecia]

I would like to know how you know this.

It is worth pointing out that one can't prove a null hypothesis.

Segregated bathrooms can be explained as a symptom of sexism, rather than a cause of it.

Hmm..... I see your point.

I would still object to the preface "In reality".

[Neutraligon]

I would like to know how you know this.

It is worth pointing out that one can't prove a null hypothesis.

Segregated bathrooms can be explained as a symptom of sexism, rather than a cause of it.

Rather then sexism I would say it rests in Victorian morals. Time was restrooms where not segregated.

[Alvecia]

Where is your source that the average is 3 minutes?

Honestly, because I did a tax planning strategy for a convention center one time, I had a copy of the contractor's notes. He used 3 minutes as an average in the stall (5 minutes in the bathroom) to justify the number of bathrooms given the amount of seating in the facility.

I have no idea if that's universal. It's just the only number I had.

In any case, whether it's 1 minute or 3 minutes or 40 minutes, it still doesn't matter. Unisex bathrooms are more efficient from a usage standpoint than gender segregated bathrooms because there will be no one waiting in line to use the restroom while restrooms sit unused.

Ah, I think I see how this discussion came about now. It wasn't really clear when I read through before.
Nicholia is opposed to unisex bathrooms because he does not believe they are more efficient?

[Grand Nicholia]

In reality, segregated bathrooms do NOT cause sexism. Explain to me how it would, if it did.

But that adding up will be very slow. Desegregation would be minuscule, always.

And that last statement is just assumption.

You would have been better just asking how they did. Now you've made the statement that

In reality, segregated bathrooms do NOT cause sexism

I would like to know how you know this.

Well, simply, how is it sexism? It is not, because men are separated from women, so both cant cause harm to each other.

There is a thing called family bathrooms. Where is your proof people are less likely to be attacked?

Tell me, where do most attacks happen? In places that are relatively not being used at the time of the attack, right? It is very rare for attacks to occur in heavily trafficked areas, and single unisex restrooms are more likely to be heavily trafficked that separate restrooms. The same holds for two separate restrooms that are unisex (ie restrooms that have simply had their signs changed to unisex). They are more likely to be heavily trafficked because people tend to even out lines (they go to the restroom that is not as heavily used).

Not all places have family restrooms.

But, in heavily trafficked places, more people are there that could join in fights, and start them.

I would like to know how you know this.

It is worth pointing out that one can't prove a null hypothesis.

Segregated bathrooms can be explained as a symptom of sexism, rather than a cause of it.

You must have a tumblr, don't you?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Honestly, because I did a tax planning strategy for a convention center one time, I had a copy of the contractor's notes. He used 3 minutes as an average in the stall (5 minutes in the bathroom) to justify the number of bathrooms given the amount of seating in the facility.

I have no idea if that's universal. It's just the only number I had.

In any case, whether it's 1 minute or 3 minutes or 40 minutes, it still doesn't matter. Unisex bathrooms are more efficient from a usage standpoint than gender segregated bathrooms because there will be no one waiting in line to use the restroom while restrooms sit unused.

Ah, I think I see how this discussion came about now. It wasn't really clear when I read through before.
Nicholia is opposed to unisex bathrooms because he does not believe they are more efficient?

NIcholia argues that we really need 4 or 5 kinds of bathrooms. I can locate the posts if you wish to read them.

He says we need male, female, transgender (also segregated in male and female) and a unisex bathroom. Of course, after, he goes on to say that he doesn't want unisex crowds because A) he sees all women as his mom, and B) he doesn't want anyone looking at his junk while he pees.

[Conscentia]

It is worth pointing out that one can't prove a null hypothesis.
Segregated bathrooms can be explained as a symptom of sexism, rather than a cause of it.

Rather then sexism I would say it rests in Victorian morals. Time was restrooms where not segregated.

As far as I'm aware, chamber pots and privies were unisex. Which would suggest the segregation originates after the industrial revolution.

[Grand Nicholia]

It is worth pointing out that one can't prove a null hypothesis.

Segregated bathrooms can be explained as a symptom of sexism, rather than a cause of it.

Rather then sexism I would say it rests in Victorian morals. Time was restrooms where not segregated.

Really, segregated bathrooms date far back than the victorian era.