The transgender issue is not stopping at restrooms

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Of course I was sincere! That was a terrible thing that was inflicted upon her niece!

And terrible-but much less so--to be assumed that I would be sarcastic about such an incident. Because I believe that gender neutral bathrooms should be gender neutral and not advantage (some) with penises over others.

My latest nit pick with SJWs... the extremism... can you just take a step back for one second and look at this?

you see my first sentence in what you quoted? It was a single word followed by what is called "a question mark" I said, "Sarcastic?" ? <- that is called a question mark. It indicates I am asking a question. this -> ! is called an exclamation mark. It is used to exclaim a statement. They are used completely differently. Your response to me about that sentence was, "..terrible-but much less so--to be assumed that I would be sarcastic".

This is the problem with kids these days... ask a question and get accused of a "terrible" crime against a person for making whatever assumption... when clearly and obviously no assumption was made... a question was asked. It quite literally could read "Are you being sarcastic by saying the niece experienced something terrible?" but, the SJW in you just had to troll out the spittle filled outrage... because America.

My latest nit pick with SJWs... the extremism... can you just take a step back for one second and look at this?

"ask a question and get accused of a 'terrible' crime against a person for making whatever assumption..." Using extremist language of "crime" is a way for you to troll out the spittle filled outrage... because Make America Great Again.

 

[Malintent]

My latest nit pick with SJWs... the extremism... can you just take a step back for one second and look at this?

you see my first sentence in what you quoted? It was a single word followed by what is called "a question mark" I said, "Sarcastic?" ? <- that is called a question mark. It indicates I am asking a question. this -> ! is called an exclamation mark. It is used to exclaim a statement. They are used completely differently. Your response to me about that sentence was, "..terrible-but much less so--to be assumed that I would be sarcastic".

This is the problem with kids these days... ask a question and get accused of a "terrible" crime against a person for making whatever assumption... when clearly and obviously no assumption was made... a question was asked. It quite literally could read "Are you being sarcastic by saying the niece experienced something terrible?" but, the SJW in you just had to troll out the spittle filled outrage... because America.

My latest nit pick with SJWs... the extremism... can you just take a step back for one second and look at this?

"ask a question and get accused of a 'terrible' crime against a person for making whatever assumption..." Using extremist language of "crime" is a way for you to troll out the spittle filled outrage... because Make America Great Again.

Exactly.. well done.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem confused about whether it is the time involved or the space involved re: urinals that make them preferable. I'm not surprised as it certainly cannot take more time to piss in a toilet than it does in a urinal and given that virtually every man has access to a toilet at home into which he pisses regularly, it beggars disbelief that he cannot transfer the skill to a bathroom stall in a public bathroom.

I'm not confused, you're not following my argument. I'm looking at the throughput of the bathroom vs cost--nothing else makes sense because if you ignore cost the whole issue goes away, just add so many toilets nobody ever waits.

The primary cost of bathroom facilities normally is the cost of the space they occupy, the urinal occupies about half the space of the stall and thus should empty about twice as many people for the money that stalls do. I'm adding a bit to that because navigating a stall door takes a bit of time, raising/lowering the seat takes a bit of time and a typical piss is only 21 seconds anyway.

Which is it? Space or time? Personally, I think it's because it's a socially acceptable way to look at other men's dicks without appearing 'gay.' Or perhaps a chance to relive the more carefree days of childhood when it was not considered outrageous to piss in the bushes instead of bothering to come inside to use the toilet. You liked getting away with something and a urinal lets you relive these rebellious experiences. Plus the whole looking at other men's dick thing. I think that must be very important or else no one would object to using a toilet in a stall since that's what you mostly use at home.

You're going totally off the rails here with the gay bit.

As for space vs time--I'm making no such comparison. The issue is how many people the bathroom can empty per hour--and that will be optimum if about 1/4 of the facilities are urinals.

2) You missed the real costs. The cheapest office space I'm finding in an admittedly brief search is $20/ft^2/yr. That stall is 15 ft^2, that means they're paying $300/yr for that toilet, but only about $150/yr for the urinal. Expensive cities will be roughly 3x this.

So the real point is that men like to be close to other men when they take a piss?

I'd like to see you actually back up that toilets stalls take up twice the square footage that a urinal uses. I think you are just making up the number, actually.

Since you think you understand the issues try Google. Those size numbers were all from the building codes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why can't it be both?

I suspect she would rather it not be both because that would require speaking to two arguments instead of one, granted she has spoken to neither, so I don't really know.

And they're both red herrings as they are simply intermediates towards the true number: cost. What is the cheapest way to construct a restroom adequate for the demand.

- - - Updated - - -

It is neither space nor time at issue (for me). It is the number of things I must touch with my hands.

But don't you touch the door knob to open it and get into the bathroom? That is filthy. It has all the germs on it that you'll find in that bathroom, and probably more. In my office building they have taken to putting little antibacterial swabs outside the bathroom doors so people can whipe the germs off after they touch the doorknob.

We are living in a more and more germphobic society.

High volume restrooms almost never have doors.

 

[Jarhyn]

I suspect she would rather it not be both because that would require speaking to two arguments instead of one, granted she has spoken to neither, so I don't really know.

And they're both red herrings as they are simply intermediates towards the true number: cost. What is the cheapest way to construct a restroom adequate for the demand.

- - - Updated - - -

It is neither space nor time at issue (for me). It is the number of things I must touch with my hands.

But don't you touch the door knob to open it and get into the bathroom? That is filthy. It has all the germs on it that you'll find in that bathroom, and probably more. In my office building they have taken to putting little antibacterial swabs outside the bathroom doors so people can whipe the germs off after they touch the doorknob.

We are living in a more and more germphobic society.

High volume restrooms almost never have doors.

And smart building managers use white brass for the knob, since it is self-sterilizing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That makes sense, both of the above.

I have seen that in shopping malls etc, yes, there is no door, its just a maze of walls to keep people from looking in. In bars and office buildings though I've always seen doors. Sometimes they are doors you can just push without using your hands though. That's another idea. Pull from the outside, push from the inside, so that if you gonna wash your hands anyway, who cares if you touch the door going in?