skirtcafe.org

If a restroom is a "one holer" (single occupant) I don't see why it should be gendered. For that matter, if the stalls were more private and the urinals were in a walled off section there would be no need to gender restrooms.

John

Stu wrote:... I would vehemently and aggressively object if someone who was obviously female entered a male changing room or toilet while I was using it.

Avoid Belgium.

I have used bathrooms that were considered open use, meaning used at the same time by both sexes. They did have stalls like all other bathrooms but did not have the urinals walled off. They did have short walls between the urinals as most male bathrooms do. When I was using them, there were about 6 or 7 others in there as well, both male and female. No one seemed to have any problem with the opposite sex being in the same room doing their duty at the same time. I know it did not bother me one bit.

My question is why would you get so upset at others using the same bathroom as you even though they are of the opposite sex???

Fred in Skirts wrote:My question is why would you get so upset at others using the same bathroom as you even though they are of the opposite sex???

I regard using the bathroom in the same way as I regard getting undressed or showering - i.e. I don't want to do so in the sight of members of the opposite sex. I know some people are OK with that, but I'm not.

There are peeping Toms who look over, under and through a hole in the wall or cracks. Women have been attacked in restrooms. Those are problems.

Happy-N-Skirts wrote:There are peeping Toms who look over, under and through a hole in the wall or cracks. Women have been attacked in restrooms. Those are problems.

So what should a trans-woman do to address this problem?

In the U.K. there are no laws about who can use a public toilet -- as long as they behave themselves.  Conventional segregation can be ignored if the queues are too long and I have never heard anybody make a fuss about it.

During a week-long festival in the Summer, which I spent mostly en femme, I used whichever toilet was the most convenient.  I was helpfully redirected away from the Gents on two occasions but never received any comments in the Ladies.

Stu wrote:I regard using the bathroom in the same way as I regard getting undressed or showering - i.e. I don't want to do so in the sight of members of the opposite sex. I know some people are OK with that, but I'm not.

Interesting. I can understand your discomfort, but only in the sense that I feel that way about doing my business in the sight of any other human of any kind, ever. I have gradually gotten used to sitting on the toilet with my wife present, but only her, and even then I'm still very shy about it.

When you get older, the problem solves itself. After I drop my quarter pounder, in 10 seconds flat I have the whole restroom area to myself.

beachlion wrote:When you get older, the problem solves itself. After I drop my quarter pounder, in 10 seconds flat I have the whole restroom area to myself.

Just don't light a match!!!!

JohnH wrote:If a restroom is a "one holer" (single occupant) I don't see why it should be gendered. For that matter, if the stalls were more private and the urinals were in a walled off section there would be no need to gender restrooms.

John

This has been basically my thoughts for some time. Build the bathrooms a little different, and it ceases to be an issue. Older buildings will be around for a long time, however, and renovations are expensive.

The real issue is locker rooms (and store changing rooms, and shower facilities), not restrooms. Either you offer individual walked off spaces to change, or you need to segregate by body type (sex) which becomes awkward for trans people no matter which room you let them go into. Perhaps adding some private rooms, in addition to the sex segregated open changing areas would be the solution. These could be used by trans people as well as families (dads changing their daughters, mom's changing their sons). It would be like the family restrooms I see in some larger public spaces like airports.

The religious employment thing is not what most people make it out to be.

Religious business people cannot fire someone for not holding to their beliefs or values. Religious organizations can. If a church or religious school has someone working for them as a minister or other teacher of the faith who starts going against that faith, they can be let go. This is common sense. This obviously does not apply to someone like the janitor.

The high profile cases have been religious schools who fired a teacher. Sometimes that teacher was primarily teaching something else, like math, science, or a language class. Here it gets tricky. The schools have (successfully) argued that the teachers are also expected to be religious leaders and ethical role models to the children in the school, and this makes the ministerial exceptions to employment law apply.

The other cases were about whether a religious employer is required to provide employees with payments for health services that conflict with their faith, such as abortion and contraception, in their benefits package. This has almost no bearing on the discussion in this thread.

All of this, however, is from a US perspective, and is simply what I've gathered from following these issues as I can. I'm not a lawyer...

The irony here is if transgenderism could somehow rebrand itself as a religion instead of a gender identity, it would be protected at the highest level of law. In my observation of the populous, most of the objection to the trans lifestyle is based on religious conviction.

My point being, if we as a society are expected to walk on egg shells and dare NOT say anything against someone's religious beliefs in the public (and sometimes private) square, no matter how ridiculous the religious practice is, why can't this same courtesy be granted to transgender people?

Hey I get it.. some people think a "guy calling himself a girl" is retarded, I happen to think a bunch of fully grown adults rolling around on the floor, shouting gibberish, and rubbing oil on each other's forehead to cure cancer is pretty damned stupid... but hey... that's their right and I respect it [the right, not the practice] all the same.

One is protected at the highest level of law, the other is almost illegal. I don't get it.

People are strange.

I posted a fresh thread on my YouTube link but took it down because I had second thoughts about stirring up a fresh hornet's nest, plus we already have a couple of threads [this one being one of them] on the subject. After receiving a PM from a members who seemed to appreciate the video, I will repost it here on this thread, as it seems more aligned with the discussion at hand, that being "sex and gender"

https://youtu.be/OxlfmB4xo8A

Do not take this as an attack on you Dust, in fact you are correct in what your write and I find myself in agreement with many of your post. However the whole "religious freedom" subject is getting under my skin. This is not aimed at you, but I'm having a hard time holding my tounge listening to people bash lifestyles they don't understand, then turning around, kneel, and ask some extra-terrestrial, magic sky daddy to smite their enemies. It's at the highest level of ridiculous.

Jim, I know you are a "live and let live" Christian, so do not take this post as an attack on you or your religion. I take absolutely no issue with anyone PEACEFULLY practicing their faith, no matter what it is. I draw the line when people use that faith to justify ugliness towards other people. When that happens I'll gladly call out any religion for what it truly is.

Just forget I said anything. I'm a dumbass.