Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

[Alvecia]

I suspect the last two pages of his posts alone would be math.

NS doesn't require you to suspect. You can read every post anyone has ever failed to delete like some sort of wierdo-stalker.
search.php?author_id=652378&sr=posts

... not much maths by the way.

Oooh, that's handy. I'll remember that. Ta.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There you have it. Really, if you search this thread for his posts, you're either going to laugh at the stupid ideas or facepalm.

I suspect the last two pages of his posts alone would be math.

Numbers are involved, but calling his attempt ''math'' is insulting centuries of mathematical advances and study.

[Alvecia]

So disagreeing with you means you aren't intelligent?

Way to debate

Says you people. I mean, literally you said not agreeing with unisex bathroom is stupidity.

Who's "you people"?

[Italios]

Hey, I don't want anyone looking at me while I pee, either, regardless of gender. All I want in a public bathroom is cleanliness, space, and separate stalls.

I concur.

In all honesty, I don't see that why this is such a big issue, how people call segregated bathrooms "sexist." Open your eyes, people. They weren't made because they thought men above women or something equally as stupid. They were made because public bathrooms will be public bathrooms, and some people find it awkward to take a piss in the same room as someone of the opposite gender. Or some women fix their make up in a bathroom - I can see why they wouldn't want to be around other people, but really. It's not such a big deal for a man to see you putting it on.

For me, as long as I've got privacy, I'm fine. And let's be honest, no one really wants to spend a lot of time around public bathrooms. They go in, they do their stuff, they're out.

[Dyakovo]

Yup. Personally, I wouldn't say that segregated restrooms cause sexism. It can, however, be argued that they reinforce it.

Really, what proof is there that has anything to do with sexism?

Do you even know what sexism is?

[Grand Nicholia]

And if you look at their posts, you will just laugh or wonder how many times they were dropped on their head.

That seems unnecessarily insulting.

Look at their posts, they haven't said anything to shine a light on themselves.

[Neutraligon]

So disagreeing with you means you aren't intelligent?

Way to debate

Says you people. I mean, literally you said not agreeing with unisex bathroom is stupidity.

No we have said that unisex is efficient and explained why it was efficient. We have claimed it would likely reduce violence and explained why it would reduce violence. We have not claimed that you have been dropped on your head. We have claimed that you have failed to debate, that you have focused on minutia while ignoring the purpose of the post. We have specifically attacked the things you have posted, while you are attacking the poster.

[Grand Nicholia]

Really, what proof is there that has anything to do with sexism?

Do you even know what sexism is?

Yes. When men or women have an irrational fear or disgust to the other gender based on baseless claims.

[Alvecia]

That seems unnecessarily insulting.

Look at their posts, they haven't said anything to shine a light on themselves.

That doesn't make it any less unnecessarily insulting.

[Val Halla]

So disagreeing with you means you aren't intelligent?

Way to debate

Says you people. I mean, literally you said not agreeing with unisex bathroom is stupidity.

When did I say that?

I don't actually want enforced unisex bathrooms.

[Grand Nicholia]

Says you people. I mean, literally you said not agreeing with unisex bathroom is stupidity.

No we have said that unisex is efficient and explained why it was efficient. We have claimed it would likely reduce violence and explained why it would reduce violence. We have not claimed that you have been dropped on your head. We have claimed that you have failed to debate, that you have focused on minutia while ignoring the purpose of the post.

I have focused on the posts, but you guys seem way to concerned with getting on your high horse to debate.

[Galloism]

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.

Actually, the first segregated bathroom didn't exist until 1739, and weren't common in the U.S. until the late 1800s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_segregation

[Conscentia]

NS doesn't require you to suspect. You can read every post anyone has ever failed to delete like some sort of wierdo-stalker.
search.php?author_id=652378&sr=posts
... not much maths by the way.

Oooh, that's handy. I'll remember that. Ta.

If you don't know the author id, there's a button above the telegram box on everyone's nation page labelled "View Forum Posts".

[Dyakovo]

Do you even know what sexism is?

Yes. When men or women have an irrational fear or disgust to the other gender based on baseless claims.

Wrong.

Sexism
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

[Grand Nicholia]

Says you people. I mean, literally you said not agreeing with unisex bathroom is stupidity.

When did I say that?

I don't actually want enforced unisex bathrooms.

Ahem. Nevermind, that was the other guy.

THen, what do you want?

[Conscentia]

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

Actually, the first segregated bathroom didn't exist until 1739, and weren't common in the U.S. until the late 1800s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_segregation

1739 pre-dates Queen Victoria by decades.

[Neutraligon]

No we have said that unisex is efficient and explained why it was efficient. We have claimed it would likely reduce violence and explained why it would reduce violence. We have not claimed that you have been dropped on your head. We have claimed that you have failed to debate, that you have focused on minutia while ignoring the purpose of the post.

I have focused on the posts, but you guys seem way to concerned with getting on your high horse to debate.

If you were you would not claim we were dropped on our heads. You have failed to debate because you have focused on irrelevant minutia. Why don't you try actually responding to out posts, like you know gallos post that explains why unisex is more efficient. The numbers of how long it takes is irrelevant, the number of stalls is irrelevant as we are making an assumption that the same time is taken to go to the bathroom and the same number of stalls exist between the single unisex room (say 6 in one room) as there is total between the two single sex rooms (3 each). If there are far more men then women using the restroom so that there are free toilets in the woman's room (that is toilets that are not in use) while there is a line for the men's room that is an inefficiency that would not happen in unisex restrooms since all stalls would be used.

A line might still form, but all the toilets would be in use when there are unisex restrooms while some being free when divided by sex.

[Grand Nicholia]

Yes. When men or women have an irrational fear or disgust to the other gender based on baseless claims.

Wrong.

Sexism
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

I was close. But, I WANT YOU, to say how sexism is bred in men's and women's bathrooms.

[Galloism]

Actually, the first segregated bathroom didn't exist until 1739, and weren't common in the U.S. until the late 1800s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_segregation

1739 pre-dates Queen Victoria by decades.

Fair point, although keeping in mind it still wasn't common. That was just the first one ever.

[Italios]

Wrong.

I was close. But, I WANT YOU, to say how sexism is bred in men's and women's bathrooms.

Don't ask us to say what isn't true, please.

[Grand Nicholia]

I have focused on the posts, but you guys seem way to concerned with getting on your high horse to debate.

If you were you would not claim we were dropped on our heads. You have failed to debate because you have focused on irrelevant minutia. Why don't you try actually responding to out posts, like you know gallos post that explains why unisex is more efficient. The numbers of how long it takes is irrelevant, the number of stalls is irrelevant as we are making an assumption that the same time is taken to go to the bathroom and the same number of stalls exist between the single unisex room (say 6 in one room) as there is total between the two single sex rooms (3 each). If there are far more men then women using the restroom so that there are free toilets in the woman's room (that is toilets that are not in use) while there is a line for the men's room that is an inefficiency that would not happen in unisex restrooms since all stalls would be used.

A line might still form, but all the toilets would be in use when there are unisex restrooms while some being free when divided by sex.

Either way, it should be up to the business owner, to bring up my other ideas to the newcomers.
But, also, your idea spits in the face of tradition, comfortability of the cisgendered, etc. And I still say the cost is bigger.

[Val Halla]

When did I say that?

I don't actually want enforced unisex bathrooms.

Ahem. Nevermind, that was the other guy.

THen, what do you want?

Male, female, unisex.

[Galloism]

If you were you would not claim we were dropped on our heads. You have failed to debate because you have focused on irrelevant minutia. Why don't you try actually responding to out posts, like you know gallos post that explains why unisex is more efficient. The numbers of how long it takes is irrelevant, the number of stalls is irrelevant as we are making an assumption that the same time is taken to go to the bathroom and the same number of stalls exist between the single unisex room (say 6 in one room) as there is total between the two single sex rooms (3 each). If there are far more men then women using the restroom so that there are free toilets in the woman's room (that is toilets that are not in use) while there is a line for the men's room that is an inefficiency that would not happen in unisex restrooms since all stalls would be used.

A line might still form, but all the toilets would be in use when there are unisex restrooms while some being free when divided by sex.

Either way, it should be up to the business owner, to bring up my other ideas to the newcomers.
But, also, your idea spits in the face of tradition, comfortability of the cisgendered, etc. And I still say the cost is bigger.

That grand roughly 130 year old tradition from ye olden times?

And there's no reasonable basis for saying "the cost is bigger". None at all.

[Grand Nicholia]

Actually, the first segregated bathroom didn't exist until 1739, and weren't common in the U.S. until the late 1800s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_segregation

1739 pre-dates Queen Victoria by decades.

To be fair, way back before then, there was other countries and civilizations who practiced segregation in the bathroom with success.

[Dyakovo]

Wrong.

I was close. But, I WANT YOU, to say how sexism is bred in men's and women's bathrooms.

Why? I've not claimed that such is the case.