"It makes no sense to have separated bathrooms."

[tabzer]

Girl's toilets are usually disgusting as shit too, leaving public toilets a mess is something most people do regardless of gender, culture, race, religion or nationality.

Japanese bathrooms are probably cleaner than your average American bedroom.

 

[Tsukiru]

Ooh! Ooh! I do! Here ya go.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/202...oudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

This story doesn't actually prove a risk, especially when you consider

• The defendant doesn't identify as trans, they just wore a skirt. An article with the mother say they just did this whenever. So the article is wrong about that.
• It wasn't a unisex bathroom nor just with strangers who happened to be in the bathroom. The victim knew the defendant and was in a relationship with them. Just intimidated in the incident mentioned.
• Nothing in the CBN article actually points to where they got the trans claim? But I guess this is what to expect from them period. It could've been the superintendent's comment but given the student wasn't trans in the first place, definitely jumped the shark.
• At best it's trying to connect with its transgender policy... which went into effect after this assault.

This doesn't actually relate to what's being discussed. Not in unisex bathrooms or a showing of why women would be at risk in unisex bathrooms. It sounds like you just looked up bathroom assaults and then didn't read it. That and, for whatever reason, I think the "Christian Perspective" might be extremely skewed in its stake and presentation of this incident. Really could've and should've double checked this.

It goes without saying, none of the above excuse that incident. I don't think I need to say it but at the time I feel gross not wishing the victim well even after so long.

 

[Xzi]

Ooh! Ooh! I do! Here ya go.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/202...oudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

Try reading what you post before posting it. This incident occurred in a girls' bathroom, while Catboy was asking specifically for proof of increased incident rates in UNISEX bathrooms. This only further proves the point that people who are intent on committing crimes won't be deterred by simple signage.

 

[Tsukiru]

Try reading what you post before posting it.

It's just one of the go-to stories people heard from their favorite reactionary. I'd say the reading was done for them already, if there was any reading done at all.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Tell me you've never gone into a public unisex bathroom without telling me

I have, but not when it's being used by a 9 year old child. If that's what floats your boat then I feel sorry for you.

EDIT: The only unisex bathrooms I've ever seen in life or been in contain a single toilet and a lock on the door. So it's 1 person at a time, which is how unisex bathrooms should be.

 

[tabzer]

This only further proves the point that people who are intent on committing crimes won't be deterred by simple signage.

"gun-free zone". "women's bathroom".

These are invitations to the degenerate.

The signage isn't a deterrent. The penalties for not following the signage, as it varies, could be.

Also, places that encourage public co-ed attendance with no camera security is definitely going to facilitate more sex. Both good and bad kinds. People bending over to ignore this very obvious fact have already had the lobotomy.

It's sorry that "common sense" is inaccessible to the minority that willingly blow their own brains out (with chemicals or guns). There's a reason why it's "common sense" and not "universal fact" btw; as the minority's denial is what keeps it from crossing that threshold. Pretending you exist in your own world where common sense is something different is quite the contortion act.

 

[Tsukiru]

It's sorry that "common sense" is inaccessible to the minority that willingly blow their own brains out (with chemicals or guns). There's a reason why it's "common sense" and not "universal fact" btw; as the minority's denial is what keeps it from crossing that threshold. Pretending you exist in your own world where common sense is something different is quite the contortion act.

Given that you think that when people "willingly blow their own brains out" is a matter of common sense and not... anything else (or think it's reasonable to bring up and not just weird and cruel), I don't think you should be trusted on the topic of common sense. Or anything really, given your attitude.

Especially with the actual contortion act of somehow taking what I said and making leaps and bounds to reach "pretending you exist in your own world".

Nothing about the definition(s) of common sense mention whatever "minority's denial" you pulled out of your ass. Meanwhile a "universal fact" is.... nonexistent in regards to Cambridge, Merriam, or dictionary.com. At best we can apply "universal" which means "existing everywhere or involving everyone" (Cambridge). Which sounds like the actual difference between it and common sense ("the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way") is that it's subjective and cannot involve everyone. Which is my point. What information I consider basic and practical in my life differs from yours, even if there's some overlap. And not everyone shares even what overlaps. Not whatever vague statement about some "minority" you spend too much time imagining as "degenerate".

Genuinely awe-struck at someone having no self awareness to give the definition of "the minority's denial is what keeps it from crossing that threshold" and just... not fucking checking? Based on what? How do we know when the threshold has passed?

 

[Xzi]

Pretending you exist in your own world where common sense is something different is quite the contortion act.

Common sense =/= "just the way it's always been." By this same logic you would've argued that separate drinking fountains for black and white people were also "common sense." Basically boils down to the fact that you're afraid of any slight change, which is pretty sad for anyone under the age of 70.

Now, what I will say is that it doesn't make much sense for existing buildings with already-separated bathrooms to remodel, but a lot of buildings already had unisex bathrooms installed as well, long before this topic became the latest target for conservative fearmongering.

 

[ertaboy356b]

Lol no, I don't want to see blood all the damn time.

 

[tabzer]

Given that you think that when people "willingly blow their own brains out" is a matter of common sense and not...

Can you rewrite that in a way that makes more sense? It seems you are saying that I think when people "willingly blow their brains out", that is a matter of common sense. The sentiment I intended on conveying is that when someone is willing to blow their brains out, it is out of a disinterest of "common sense".

What information I consider basic and practical in my life differs from yours

Information that is basic and practical to your day-to-day upkeep is not the same as common sense. A lot of those details are often private and subjective from person to person. "Common sense" is a social agreement, subjective not to the individual, but to society.

Nothing about the definition(s) of common sense mention whatever "minority's denial" you pulled out of your ass. Meanwhile a "universal fact" is.... nonexistent in regards to Cambridge, Merriam, or dictionary.com. At best we can apply "universal" which means "existing everywhere or involving everyone" (Cambridge). Which sounds like the actual difference between it and common sense ("the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way") is that it's subjective and cannot involve everyone.

Can't find "universal fact" in the dictionary--must not exist, then. Try some introspection; I didn't find your comment in the dictionary, so everything must be coming from your ass? To your credit, you are almost there, in seeing the difference between "universal" and "common". You pretty much acknowledge what I say as being true, but it's wrong, because you didn't say it in your own way first. Considering your character, that makes sense.

Not whatever vague statement about some "minority" you spend too much time imagining as "degenerate".

Nothing in my post suggests that the minority opinion is degenerate. I talked about minorities and I talked about the degenerate. What are you pointing at?

Common sense =/= "just the way it's always been."

Correct. Based on your need to tell me this, it appears that you think this is what I am saying. It is not. Knowing that, re-read what I said and re-formalize the opinion.

By this same logic you would've argued that separate drinking fountains for black and white people were also "common sense."

I'm not sure if that was common sense or not. Definitely isn't now, even if it was. It's definitely a common understanding, that those things happened. If you could further condense the point that you were trying to make, it'd be appreciated.

Basically boils down to the fact that you're afraid of any slight change, which is pretty sad for anyone under the age of 70.

No. I am the change; you haven't recognized it.

 

[Xzi]

I'm not sure if that was common sense or not. Definitely isn't now, even if it was. It's definitely a common understanding, that those things happened. If you could further condense the point that you were trying to make, it'd be appreciated.

The point is that if you're going to claim an increased rate of sexual assaults or other incidents occur because of the existence of unisex restrooms, you need hard data to back that assertion; falling back on your personal definition of common sense with a sample size of one isn't gonna cut it.

 

[The Catboy]

Ooh! Ooh! I do! Here ya go.

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/202...oudoun-county-high-school-girls-bathroom-case

You didn’t read my post nor did you even read that article

 

[tabzer]

The point is that if you're going to claim an increased rate of sexual assaults or other incidents occur because of the existence of unisex restrooms, you need hard data to back that assertion; falling back on your personal definition of common sense with a sample size of one isn't gonna cut it.

The claim is that the increased reservation of co-ed, un-surveilled, areas, accessible to the public, can only have a net-positive effect in relation to sexual acts; good and bad. Considering that you don't seem to have an idea why we have separate bathrooms puts you into that minority box that doesn't grasp common sense.

 

[jeffyTheHomebrewer]

So you wouldn't mind 40 year old men peeing next to your daughter?

I wouldn't. So what if it's a 40 year old man? If it was a women-only bathroom it could still be a 40 year old woman.
What, do you want to also have age-separated bathrooms too?

 

[Deleted member 559230]

I wouldn't. So what if it's a 40 year old man? If it was a women-only bathroom it could still be a 40 year old woman.
What, do you want to also have age-separated bathrooms too?

No, and as I stated I've never seen a unisex bathroom with more than 1 toilet. Entering when someone else is in one would be disgusting especially if the person is under age.

 

[tabzer]

I wouldn't. So what if it's a 40 year old man? If it was a women-only bathroom it could still be a 40 year old woman.
What, do you want to also have age-separated bathrooms too?

I personally think this is why the acronym "TERF" exists; to supplant the real concerns of real women with fake sentiments.

 

[Xzi]

The claim is that the increased reservation of co-ed, un-surveilled, areas, accessible to the public, can only have a net-positive effect in relation to sexual acts; good and bad.

Again: based on what evidence/data? As long as horniness has existed, so has sex in public restrooms. A stick figure silhouette of a person in pants or a person in a dress has never and will never be enough to deter anyone. Especially, but not exclusively, if there are drugs or alcohol involved.

Considering that you don't seem to have an idea why we have separate bathrooms puts you into that minority box that doesn't grasp common sense.

We've had unisex and family bathrooms for just as long. Work that into your common sense calculator and get back to me, assuming it doesn't break your brain in the process.

 

[tabzer]

Again: based on what evidence/data?

Not that you are accurate with the facts of the following statement, but the sentiment from you should be enough:

As long as horniness has existed, so has sex in public restrooms.

I lol'd. If you can't correct this statement, then it's going to become my new signature.

We've had unisex and family bathrooms for just as long.

As long as what, sexual assault? I'm not pretending unisex bathrooms are a brand new concept. People having sex in bathrooms is not brand new, either.

You seem to be on this irrational crusade to suggest that people will avoid sex because of unisex toilets. It is so fucking stupid, and you are so fucking adorable. In that disposable sense.

 

[Xzi]

I lol'd. If you can't correct this statement, then it's going to become my new signature.

Correct it how? This is basically telling on yourself that you've never been to a concert or music festival in your life.

As long as what; sexual assault? I'm not pretending unisex bathrooms are a brand new concept.

As long as we've had separate bathrooms in some buildings, there have been unisex bathrooms in others. It's never been a big deal and it still isn't. Your only tactic here is an appeal to emotionality and rigid 1950s Christian morals (which were at best hypocritical even at that time), so it's not a very good tactic.

You seem to be on this irrational crusade to suggest that people will avoid sex because of unisex toilets.

I never said or implied that. I'm saying unisex bathrooms don't magically increase the amount of consensual or non-consensual sex people have in public restrooms. The rate stays exactly the same.

 

[tabzer]

Correct it how? This is just basically telling on yourself that you've never been to a concert or music festival in your life. The fact that biology text-books don't mention it is simply a crime. Someday, our biology textbooks will be updated.

I remembered that one time when humanity first discovered procreation at Lollapalooza. It might even be in textbooks.

As long as we've had separate bathrooms in some buildings, there have been unisex bathrooms in others. It's never been a big deal and it still isn't. Your only tactic here is an appeal to emotionality and rigid 1950s Christian morals (which were at best hypocritical even at that time), so it's not a very good tactic.

I'm not saying unisex bathrooms are a big deal. I'm saying that they are a place you can have sex with relatively diminished risk, so that increases rate of sex. More opportunities for sex=more opportunities for bad sex.

I'm just doing you a favor. I'm not disagreeing with your political position just by pointing out the obvious, am I?

I'm saying unisex bathrooms don't magically increase the amount of consensual or non-consensual sex people have in public restrooms. The rate stays exactly the same

I never claimed it was by magic. It's insinuated that it increases based on the relaxed controls over basic biology. The rate cannot be determined to stay "exactly the same" in the absence of people telling you about their mile high club enrollment.