Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[TomC]

I don't like urinals. I prefer what the Brits call a sit down wee.

Suit yourself, I've never heard of a restroom that didn't have a commode. And frankly, the idea of sitting my bare butt on a public toilet seat is kinda gross to me. I'm pretty good at making sure I never need to. It's been years since I have.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Urinals only make sense in men-only restrooms.

Nope, they also make sense in a family style restroom. Urinals are just more efficient for at least 40% of trips to the restroom.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Urinals are a one gender only convenience and take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more people who do not use a penis to urinate—or who cannot urinate standing up for whatever reason.

Urinals are both space efficient and time savers. I really don't want them to go away.
Tom

They are time savers for men. They are a complete waste of space for anyone without a functioning penis.

 

[TomC]

Urinals are a one gender only convenience and take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more people who do not use a penis to urinate—or who cannot urinate standing up for whatever reason.

Urinals are both space efficient and time savers. I really don't want them to go away.
Tom

They are time savers for men. They are a complete waste of space for anyone without a functioning penis.

Correct. They are time and space savers.
Including women with penises, you know I'm right.

But if three urinals can be fit into the same space as two commodes with stalls, and a person with the ability to pee while standing up can do their business in seconds, and get out of the restroom, why do you want the urinals to go away?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Urinals are a one gender only convenience and take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more people who do not use a penis to urinate—or who cannot urinate standing up for whatever reason.

Urinals are both space efficient and time savers. I really don't want them to go away.
Tom

They are time savers for men. They are a complete waste of space for anyone without a functioning penis.

Pros
Save on water use. Divider instead of a stall means cost of the per spot is less. Can fit more in a particular length of space.

Cons or not so Pros
Cost savings likely negligible, however, based on entire bathroom costs. Use of water could be mimicked with toilet that has two flush options. Disabled can't use them.

Conclusion
Create urination support groups and stop going to the bathroom.

 

[Toni]

Urinals are a one gender only convenience and take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more people who do not use a penis to urinate—or who cannot urinate standing up for whatever reason.

Urinals are both space efficient and time savers. I really don't want them to go away.
Tom

They are time savers for men. They are a complete waste of space for anyone without a functioning penis.

Correct. They are time and space savers.
Including women with penises, you know I'm right.

But if three urinals can be fit into the same space as two commodes with stalls, and a person with the ability to pee while standing up can do their business in seconds, and get out of the restroom, why do you want the urinals to go away?
Tom

Have you ever noticed how there are lines outside de of women’s bathrooms but not men’s?

Men’s needs re: access to facilities are being met or over-met.

Women’s are under met.

Men typically take less time to use a toilet than women do. If it takes men an additional 10 seconds to open and close a stall door, that’s not much of an inconvenience. Not having enough toilet stalls but a row full of urinals not in use is a smack in the face of anyone without a functioning penis.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Urinals are a one gender only convenience and take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more people who do not use a penis to urinate—or who cannot urinate standing up for whatever reason.

Urinals are both space efficient and time savers. I really don't want them to go away.
Tom

They are time savers for men. They are a complete waste of space for anyone without a functioning penis.

Correct. They are time and space savers.
Including women with penises, you know I'm right.

But if three urinals can be fit into the same space as two commodes with stalls, and a person with the ability to pee while standing up can do their business in seconds, and get out of the restroom, why do you want the urinals to go away?
Tom

Have you ever noticed how there are lines outside de of women’s bathrooms but not men’s?

I immediately think of the local theater. I haven't been in the women's room, can't speak for it. In the men's room, the space efficiency of urinals is noted because they couldn't be replaced with stalls. There are several stalls, but the distance from the stall doors to the urinals on the other side of the room is narrower than another stall. IE, they take up less real estate.

Men’s needs re: access to facilities are being met or over-met.

I'm really struggling to remember what thread this is and why this matters. If women need larger restrooms to accommodate more stalls, then this should become part of the building code. So, are we seeking gendered bathrooms meeting needs or making all bathrooms meet needs for all people?

 

[WAB]

Howz about diapers for all?

 

[seanie]

You people are obsessed with toilets.

 

[ZiprHead]

You people are obsessed with toilets.

You're obsessed with trans folk.

 

[seanie]

Not at all.

They are kinda relevant to the thread though.

 

[laughing dog]

So are toilets

 

[ZiprHead]

Lauren Boebert & Nancy Mace confront woman they thought was trans in ‘predictable’ Capitol bathroom incident

The anti-LGBTQ+ Republican lawmakers followed a cisgender woman they mistook as the first transgender member of Congress into the bathroom.

www.advocate.com

A misguided attempt to enforce Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s discriminatory anti-trans bathroom policy at the Capitol led to an embarrassing misstep by GOP Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina who were involved in an incident on Thursday that transgender Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride's office called “predictable.”

The pair confronted a cisgender woman in the restroom, mistakenly believing her to be the Delaware Democratic lawmaker, who is the first out transgender member of Congress. McBride had previously said she would follow House rules after Johnson banned transgender people from using the bathroom in line with their gender identity. The incident has reignited criticism of Johnson’s anti-trans bathroom regulations, which critics say endanger and harass all women.

The Daily Beast reports that Boebert told other members on the House floor that she saw McBride walk into the ladies’ room and followed her, saying, “You shouldn’t be here.” However, Boebert quickly realized she was mistaken, according to an unnamed GOP lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “I overheard Boebert say she went to apologize,” the lawmaker added.

Bloomberg reporter Billy House documented the developments in real time and shared his firsthand account on X (formerlyTwitter).

 

[Politesse]

Not at all.

They are kinda relevant to the thread though.

Your thread, at this point, OP has vanished.

About your unwarranted and unwanted obsession with other people's genitals and other people's business.

 

[Arctish]

Lauren Boebert & Nancy Mace confront woman they thought was trans in ‘predictable’ Capitol bathroom incident

The anti-LGBTQ+ Republican lawmakers followed a cisgender woman they mistook as the first transgender member of Congress into the bathroom.

www.advocate.com

A misguided attempt to enforce Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s discriminatory anti-trans bathroom policy at the Capitol led to an embarrassing misstep by GOP Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina who were involved in an incident on Thursday that transgender Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride's office called “predictable.”

The pair confronted a cisgender woman in the restroom, mistakenly believing her to be the Delaware Democratic lawmaker, who is the first out transgender member of Congress. McBride had previously said she would follow House rules after Johnson banned transgender people from using the bathroom in line with their gender identity. The incident has reignited criticism of Johnson’s anti-trans bathroom regulations, which critics say endanger and harass all women.

The Daily Beast reports that Boebert told other members on the House floor that she saw McBride walk into the ladies’ room and followed her, saying, “You shouldn’t be here.” However, Boebert quickly realized she was mistaken, according to an unnamed GOP lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “I overheard Boebert say she went to apologize,” the lawmaker added.

Bloomberg reporter Billy House documented the developments in real time and shared his firsthand account on X (formerlyTwitter).

I once worked the front desk at a fitness club. One of the members was a woman who kept her hair extremely short (Sinead O'Connor style) and typically wore cargo pants and boots to the club. One of the other members complained about the "man" using the women's locker room. The manager looked into the matter and confirmed that the member with the short hair had an ID that listed her sex as "female". The other member wasn't satisfied and was soon joined by a couple of other complainers.

There was no way to satisfy the complainers without resorting to building a separate locker room for 'non-conforming' or 'can't be easily categorized on looks alone' folks. They just had to accept the fact that someone using the women's locker room had zero femininity and liked it that way, or find another fitness club that only allowed girly looking women to be members.

 

[Bomb#20]

Urinals only make sense in men-only restrooms.

Why?

I'm picturing how this discussion would go...

Joe: A woman came into the men's room yesterday, said the ladies' was gross, but somebody chased her out. I'm thinking, what's the big deal? Why don't we let them do it if they want?

Tim: God no. I like having urinals. Quicker and easier. Less splash too.

Joe: Huh? What's that got to do with it? You think if a woman comes in she's gonna rip out the urinals?

Tim: No, dumbass, Facilities will rip them out, duh!

Joe: Why would they do that? You're saying if women come in they'll make Facilities get rid of them? How? I think you overestimate their power. If they even wanted to.

Tim: Oh come on! No, of course the women wouldn't make Facilities do it. We'd tell them to do it.

Joe: We? You mean, we men? Why the hell would we want to do that?

Tim: Because it wouldn't be a men-only restroom any more!

Joe: Huh? So what?

Tim: So the urinals would have to go! Urinals only make sense in men-only restrooms.

Joe: Um, not seeing it. Help me out here.​

 

[seanie]

Not at all.

They are kinda relevant to the thread though.

Your thread, at this point, OP has vanished.

About your unwarranted and unwanted obsession with other people's genitals and other people's business.

Sex is real, binary, immutable, and in some circumstances matters.

But people can identify how they wish, and should be protected from unfair discrimination and harassment. It’s just that sometimes their biological sex is still more important than their gender identity.

 

[Bomb#20]

Men do not need to use urinals. Men are perfectly capable of <etc>

True, but we're not really a "to each according to his need" society, and the societies that are don't have a good track record. What people want matters. A lot of people want urinals, and that's a perfectly adequate reason for providing them.

Men do not need to use normal toilets either, nor do women. Both sexes are perfectly capable of using Asian-style squat toilets. Those would probably save money and certainly space. Not a good reason to get rid of normal toilets.

Urinals are a one gender only convenience and take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more people who do not use a penis to urinate—or who cannot urinate standing up for whatever reason.

And that's a good reason to replace two urinals with one normal toilet stall, is it? Normal toilet stalls are a one abledness only convenience and take up valuable floor space that could accommodate more people who cannot evacuate in the limited space they provide, who need extra room for hand-holds, leverage, a wheelchair, and/or a second person to assist them. I take it we'll soon be amending the ADA to ban regular-sized toilet stalls and require them all to be ripped out and replaced with a smaller number of large stalls so we can accommodate more handicapped people? How is it possible we didn't do this already, back when we started allowing people in wheelchairs to use public restrooms? The horror!

If ever there was a restroom where it's appropriate to have a variety of fixtures it's one intended to cater to a variety of people.

 

[Toni]

Y’all do t need to worry: I understand male privilege and the motivations to keep it very well.

 

[laughing dog]

And that's a good reason to replace two urinals with one normal toilet stall, is it?

YES for a unisex restroom.
And that 2:1 replacement ratio is an assumption not a physical constant.