skirtcafe.org

moonshadow wrote: One interesting hypothetical I ran whilst thinking about this earlier is...

What if a boy about Lila's age, decided "he was a girl inside", and thus, began to call himself transgender, BUT didn't dress like a girl, no skirts, no dresses, no long hair, makeup, etc? To look at our hypothetical "boy", he just looked like an ordinary boy. Yet his "soul" is that of a girl. Should he be denied use of girls facilities?

The facilities should not be 'gendered', this is a completely unnecessary segregation based on the false premise that gender=sex=requirements. There should be cubicles for those who want to sit and urinals for those who want to stand - all in the same room. This works perfectly well in other countries (I first encountered it in Belgium), everyone just accepted it and there was no indication that misbehaviour had ever been a problem. From the economic point of view, it uses less space for the total number of 'facilities' it provides.

pelmut wrote: The facilities should not be 'gendered', this is a completely unnecessary segregation based on the false premise that gender=sex=requirements. There should be cubicles for those who want to sit and urinals for those who want to stand - all in the same room. This works perfectly well in other countries (I first encountered it in Belgium), everyone just accepted it and there was no indication that misbehaviour had ever been a problem. From the economic point of view, it uses less space for the total number of 'facilities' it provides.

I tend to agree. But we are a long way from every crossing that threshold here in the states any time soon, even in the most liberal of states. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact it would take at least a few generations to undo the social conditioning that all men are perverted pigs that long for the opportunity to peep on women and children. Sadly, it seems in that one area, we are moving the wrong way. I.E. we have a big problem going on now where it seems everyone wants to "blame men" for everything.

I once watched a travel channel program about the ten strangest washrooms in the US, and one of them was, in fact, unisex. There were still two doors, one marked Men and the other Women, but they both opened into the same room. Of course there were no open toilets or urinals, just stalls. It was in an upscale nightclub trying to be avant garde or whatever.

Another had separate rooms with no signs, so if no one else was going or going when you wanted in, you had to guess.

Another had the men's and women's rooms in one large space separated only by a frosted glass partition that didn't reach the ceiling.

Another was a "onesie" with a clear glass door that turned opaque only when you shut it.

dillon wrote:Lila Perry didn't do her image or cause any favors by failing to suppress her genitalia. While I support her as a transgender youth, she needs to exhibit some restraint and maturity. She should fight for her rights, but not in a graphically offensive manner, and her parents should be advising her to that end. I'd encourage her to take lessons in discipline and demeanor from the brave African-American students who were the first to challenge the segratation of all-white public schools and universities.

I agree that she didn't do herself any favours, but I am not convinced it was deliberate. I have worn skirts out accidentally that didn't behave how I expected. That's one of the things we learn as a man that wasn't brought up to think of such things, and, of course, we have issues the Ladies don't. I think she may well have been wearing loose shorts, rather than regimental.

denimini wrote:

partlyscot wrote:It involves illegally importing small birds, or sleeping arrangements for bananas.

Our previous Prime Minister was filmed wearing that sort of thing on National TV. I now used that as a guide to what I am comfortable to wear under a mini. Surely at worst a rare glimpse of something under a skirt is OK if the same was seen in full by thousands on TV.

Quite. I have checked how much I might show when climbing ladders, and have come to the conclusion that it's just possible to see undies, but you pretty much have to be trying, and even then all you can make out is the colour. My attitude is "You want to look? Fine, you have no complaint though."

I really see nothing wrong with the sight of people wearing skimpy bathing suits in appropriate places. there are some items that are only suitable as what I would call "club" wear, i.e reserved for private functions where that is the whole point. Other than that, I'm going swimming, do you expect me to wear a toga?

pelmut wrote:The facilities should not be 'gendered', this is a completely unnecessary segregation based on the false premise that gender=sex=requirements. There should be cubicles for those who want to sit and urinals for those who want to stand - all in the same room.

I have no problem with that as far as toilet facilities go, but the other issue is changing room facilities in a school gymnasium. If you have 20 to 40 students all needing to shower/change within a 10 minute time frame between classes, you're either going to need

• room to accomodate 20 to 40 individual changing stalls and/or shower stalls
• time for them to wait in line to use the limited facilities available
• a reasonably secure, gender-segregated environment in which students of both sexes can feel safe undressing in one large shared facility, which is what most schools currently do.

And it is that last point which is of the most concern when you have a person who feels to be or claims to be female on the inside, but is quite male on the outside. Is it wrong or bigoted for girls to be uncomfortable with a naked biological male sharing a shower facility with them?

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that a straight male teen would go through the effort and embarrassment of feigning gender dysphoria purely for the sake of gaining access to the girls' shower facilities. My concern is not with deliberate intent, but with inevitable biological responses that come from having male hormones and genitalia, particularly in teenagers.

Ralph wrote:And it is that last point which is of the most concern when you have a person who feels to be or claims to be female on the inside, but is quite male on the outside. Is it wrong or bigoted for girls to be uncomfortable with a naked biological male sharing a shower facility with them?

No I don't think it's wrong. Creating separate shower stalls would be a minimal investment. But looking at the big picture, all of this still boils down to our human conditioning.

As for me, I hate to admit, but I'm DEEPLY conditioned. I have never taken part in any communal shower, not even in high school. I was that strange kid at every school that found that dark corner somewhere and changed into my gym pants when no one was looking. And I've never seen the inside of either shower room, boys or girls. I hated it.

Separate shower stalls would not only solve issues like Lila's, but would also help with kids like I was, those who are just extremely modest and shy about being seen naked by anyone else. Only my wife has seen me naked. Not counting my diaper days when I was a baby.

...

You know... come to think of it, a skirt would have made things a lot easier. I could almost change on the gym floor with a skirt. Just slip the gym shorts on under the skirt, then remove the skirt. Then change back when it's over...

Gheesh... another advantage girls have in clothing!

Caultron wrote:I once watched a travel channel program about the ten strangest washrooms in the US, and one of them was, in fact, unisex. There were still two doors, one marked Men and the other Women, but they both opened into the same room. Of course there were no open toilets or urinals, just stalls. It was in an upscale nightclub trying to be avant garde or whatever.

Another had separate rooms with no signs, so if no one else was going or going when you wanted in, you had to guess.

Another had the men's and women's rooms in one large space separated only by a frosted glass partition that didn't reach the ceiling.

Another was a "onesie" with a clear glass door that turned opaque only when you shut it.

"Onesie"? Is that anything like a "Uni"?

In Austria, I have been in a swimming pool changing room that was unisex, there were separate cubicles available, but I did see some young men using the mirrors stark naked. I also did a double take walking past the shower section when I caught sight of a group of barely teenaged girls showering off while peeling their swimsuits. Don't expect that option to be available soon, anywhere other than mainland Europe, and then, mostly in Austria and Germany. Though I think that it would be a good thing if people could just get over their excessive body modesty.

On the subject of using a skirt to change, yes I have used that option in public.

Caultron wrote:I once watched a travel channel program about the ten strangest washrooms in the US, and one of them was, in fact, unisex. There were still two doors, one marked Men and the other Women, but they both opened into the same room. Of course there were no open toilets or urinals, just stalls. It was in an upscale nightclub trying to be avant garde or whatever.
Another had separate rooms with no signs, so if no one else was going or going when you wanted in, you had to guess.
Another had the men's and women's rooms in one large space separated only by a frosted glass partition that didn't reach the ceiling.
Another was a "onesie" with a clear glass door that turned opaque only when you shut it.

And what about that one I think it is in Japan on a main through fare - an all glass structure that can be seen through but when occupied and the
door latched becomes opaque from the outside - yet from the inside one can see very clearly all the traffic moving about.
Of course by going into this glass cubical everyone knows what you did or are going to do - but in the Asian culture there is no shame in one doing the business.
It happens and is of no real concern. Only in the western hemisphere is the issue of bathrooms - restrooms - etc. a sexual issue of imaginable proportions ! LOL !

moonshadow wrote:As for me, I hate to admit, but I'm DEEPLY conditioned. I have never taken part in any communal shower, not even in high school. I was that strange kid at every school that found that dark corner somewhere and changed into my gym pants when no one was looking. And I've never seen the inside of either shower room, boys or girls. I hated it.

You sound like me Moon. I have a congenitally bad hip that excused me from gym at school. So I didn't have to share a changing area with others until I lived in the dormitories at college. Even then I would listen carefully and avoid them when they were already occupied.

There is a kilt company in Long Beach CA (SportKilt) - the original design of the kilt was a beach wrap skirt.
You go to the beach - wrap the kilt around you and change out of your under-digs and don a swim suit -
unwrap the kilt and voila off you go to surf.
When finished do the reverse - not having to wait and use a changing booth if one was available or not - none
of this looking for bushes or some hidden feature of the landscape to change.

Going to an European beach is not so much of problem - change is what people do at the beach -
"BUT" here in America changing clothing at the beach and something just ups and rears it ugly head 'THE MORALITY CLOTHING POLICE' !
Although current times and with Spring Break just around the corner we are going to give the beaches of Rio a run for cover ! LOL !

dillon wrote:..."Onesie"? Is that anything like a "Uni"?

A, "onesie," (at least as I've heard it) is a restroom with one outside door and one toilet. Toilets on airplanes are an example.

Why a onesie should be marked Men or Women is beyond me but sometimes they are.

Another definition of a "ONESIE" is a leotard type of garment with snap (poppers) buttons in the crotch for ease of changing diapers
and shirt tails tucked inside the waist band of an outer garment.

In the USA a 'Onesie' toilet could/would be a UNISEX toilet and in some of the more modern malls a Family Restroom.

If you are referring to an outhouse - a one hole seat.

For sure - one thing in English we will never agree on is one common definition of something !

As a side note how do you define flat in a vertical plane when it is normally expected to be flat in a horizontal plane ?
I am flat out of trying to explain it and don't get me started on flatulence ! LOL !

r.m.anderson wrote:Another definition of a "ONESIE" is a leotard type of garment with snap (poppers) buttons in the crotch for ease of changing diapers
and shirt tails tucked inside the waist band of an outer garment.

True, but that's not the context or definition I meant.

r.m.anderson wrote:In the USA a 'Onesie' toilet could/would be a UNISEX toilet and in some of the more modern malls a Family Restroom.

Yes, but those are usually one-holers, which is what I meant.

r.m.anderson wrote:If you are referring to an outhouse - a one hole seat.

Yes, anything with one seat.

r.m.anderson wrote:For sure - one thing in English we will never agree on is one common definition of something !

Thus life's rich tapestry unfolds.

r.m.anderson wrote:As a side note how do you define flat in a vertical plane when it is normally expected to be flat in a horizontal plane ?
I am flat out of trying to explain it and don't get me started on flatulence ! LOL !

I don't think flat necessarily means horizontal. A wall, for example, can be flat even though it hasn't fallen down. This is the actual principle correctly known in scientific and mathematical circles as flatulence.