Got it.
Back to the sarcasm and evasion. I'll presume it's because you don't want to discuss women's attitudes towards sharing public restrooms with strange men.
Tom
Bull... I have already specifically stated I supported women's rights to their own private spaces such as toilets and locker rooms. You have made huge assumptions about me because I made comments about one woman who litterally curtained off her car so a man could not hear her pee.

This, from the guy who wrote:
Going to the extent of putting curtains in her car and making other unknown arrangements to urinate there without making a mess must have been quite an undertaking. That is what makes her a prude in my book.
So, a female woman who has been so traumatized by a male that she'd go out to her car to pee is a prude, by your standards?
What a patriarch.
Tom
I have seen no evidence she was traumatized by anyone. Do you have some? Her parents could have been prudes and taught it to her.
Can you explain why you think it's a problem for Tom to assume unevidenced extra details into the anecdote even though you have no problem at all with assuming unevidenced extra details yourself?
You were the one who actually brought the story to the thread. Were you expecting no one to comment on it,
No, obviously. Were you expecting no one to comment on your comments?
to not speculate about the reasons someone would take such drastic measures? Have I ever said Tom should not have speculated therefore I too should not have speculated?
Oh please. You've been haranguing him about his speculation for two weeks.
There most certainly is a reason a woman would go to all that trouble. Which do you believe is the more likely reason why a grown woman would go to the trouble to install curtains and some sort of contraption to allow her to urinate in an automobile so a man won't be able to hear her do so.
Which do you believe is the more likely reason you haven't stopped beating your wife yet? You can't stop yourself from assuming facts not in evidence even after it's been pointed out to you.
I believe it to be far more likely prudishness, especially since I have known women who were sexually assaulted, including full on rape, who do not carry this hang up.
Dude, speculate to your heart's content; but have you considered the merits of speculating about how to explain stuff you have reason to think happened instead of speculating about how to explain stuff you just made up?
Apparently while I've been dismissing your insertions as mere rhetorical flourishes that didn't call for comment, you were serious about them and were building a narrative out of them in your imagination...
Doesn't mean I cannot think that a woman who cannot pee within earshot of a man could quite easily be a prude.
I took "earshot" to be a rough distance measurement. Silly me.
Oh, good lord. A man possibly hearing a woman pee is now having misery imposed on her!!!
I mistook that for belittling her artistically. Silly me.
Oh, good lord. A man possibly hearing a woman pee is now having misery imposed on her!!!
I can't...
I just can't...
You just can't what? You just can't help making up new details?
Do you have some evidence that what makes her so upset about a man being in the restroom with her is
he might hear her pee?!?
I'm making up details???
Yes. Obviously.
Who was it that said the words "trauma" and "misery"? Sheesh!
Tom said trauma; I said misery. You got a problem with trauma, take it up with Tom; oh wait, you already did. You got a problem with misery, do you seriously think peeing in a jar in your car without even the benefit of a directional nozzle is a happy-making experience? Sounds pretty miserable to me -- and for her it's evidently ==>
the lesser <== misery. Yes, I'm the one who actually brought the story to the thread, and this was
the whole bloody point of bringing it. It's evidence of how much women loathe having to use co-ed public restrooms. If you have a better way to measure misery than by the lengths people will go to to avoid it, I'm all ears. (And yes, I'm aware "data" isn't the plural of "anecdote". The woman is evidently high on the bell curve of loathing strange men in the bathroom with her, or low on the bell curve of willingness to bend over for male impositions, or both. Whoop de do -- circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I bet every woman who read the story sympathized. Belittling her as a "prude" instead of sympathizing is male privilege in action.)
Your turn. Who was it who said "earshot", and "A man possibly hearing a woman pee" and "so a man could not hear her pee" and "so a man won't be able to hear her do so"? That's all on you. You made that part up out of whole cloth. Seriously, dude, do you really think a woman who "carries a hang up" as you put it, about having a strange man with no respect for female boundaries in the restroom with her. would go all "Oh, that's okay then"
if the guy were deaf?!?