The women's march shows it's true colors

[ruby sparks]

I can tell you I am for the equal legal treatment of men and women...

I rather think the suggestion that public transport seats could be better designed to suit men but public toilets shouldn't be better designed to suit women put paid to that kind of claim.

I didn't say it and don't believe it.

You pretty much did. You suggested that if public transport seats were made larger, there'd be less manspreading. Regarding women's toilets, you then said in complete contrast that the problem (queues) was, in your own words, down to biology, not society.

You also added in that women already already get to use as much space, if not more.

Which is (a) irrelevant and (b) incorrect to boot.

What's telling about your double standard is that the inadequacy of women's toilets is neither an unreasonable complaint, nor something only raised by angry feminists and nor it is an attack on men, nor does it involve men being penalised. Which also gives the lie to your other claim that it's feminism and attacks on men which really bothers you.

 

[ruby sparks]

And a rise in women bashing whinges ad well. Coincidence?

Seems to fit the pattern. Increase the toxicity, more people notice? *Shrug*

But you didn't originally say 'more people notice'. You implied that the reported increase in numbers of presumably non-egalitarian feminists had to do with it.

And you are avoiding answering the questions put to you about your other claims, including that only a minority of feminists are egalitarian. You only cited data that didn't address this.

 

[Toni]

I can tell you I am for the equal legal treatment of men and women...

I rather think the suggestion that public transport seats could be better designed to suit men but public toilets shouldn't be better designed to suit women put paid to that kind of claim.

Public transport is designed to maximize ridership in the most efficient design. Women’s bodies or needs are not a consideration. Instead there is a standard passenger of average size range—usually male.

 

[Metaphor]

You pretty much did.

I very much didn't.

You suggested that if public transport seats were made larger, there'd be less manspreading.

No. I said that men spreading their legs was a postural response to seats that do not support much thigh length and seats that are closer to the ground than you would design if you had the average height of men in mind.

Regarding women's toilets, you then said in complete contrast that the problem (queues) was down to biology, not society.

I said men were more efficient at pissing, which they are. The reason I know this is because I've gone camping with no toilets whatsoever, and women have to engage in the squat and hold pose. Also, the biological fact that men can take their winker out and piss against a trough, enabling more piss events per square metre, is another reason men's toilet queues are shorter than women's.

You also added in that women already get as much space, if not more.

Which is (a) irrelevant and (b) incorrect to boot.

I dispute both but especially the second.

What's telling about your double standard is that the inadequacy of women's toilets is neither an unreasonable complaint, nor something only raised by angry feminists and nor it is an attack on men, nor does it involve men being penalised. Which also gives the lie to your other claim that it's feminism and attacks on men which really bothers you.

It almost certainly will involve men being penalised, unless women's toilets are expanded without encroaching on the space men previously got or without any additional cost.

This toilet talk also reminds me that Toni once objected to urinals in gender neutral bathrooms, even if the urinals made the wait time lower for everybody. She could not bear that men be allowed to keep any biological advantage they had, even when it hurt nobody and benefitted everybody.

 

[Metaphor]

I can tell you I am for the equal legal treatment of men and women...

I rather think the suggestion that public transport seats could be better designed to suit men but public toilets shouldn't be better designed to suit women put paid to that kind of claim.

Public transport is designed to maximize ridership in the most efficient design. Women’s bodies or needs are not a consideration. Instead there is a standard passenger of average size range—usually male.

I agree with your first sentence.

Your third sentence is cloudcuckooland crazy. It's a deeply, grossly, wilfully, fantastically, insanely, vulgar inversion of the facts. Nobody who regularly took public transport and had two brain cells to rub together could compose such a dishonest sentence and not call themselves an utter troll.

 

[ruby sparks]

I very much didn't.

You pretty much did.

1. On seats on public transport:

Seating in public transport is more suited to women than to men. If seating were designed for men, you'd see less manspreading.

Not 'arguably' small. It's undeniably small. The height is also more suited to women than men.

2. Immediately after, on public toilets:

Women have the same or more toilet space allocated to them. Nature is to blame for their inefficient urination, not society.

If women were more efficient at pissing than men, they wouldn't have toilet lines going out the door. Men can hold more liquid in their bladders and it takes them less time to get rid of it. I'm sorry this offends you. I'd tell you to blame God, but she isn't taking an audience right now.

Quite apart from the obvious double standard, there's other things, such as it being incorrect that women already or currently have the same space as men and that the reason for the queues is that men can hold more urine and discharge it quicker, which is way less than a proper, full explanation. In other words, it's not just nature, and certainly not just inefficient urination. I gave you many other reasons, which you then said you already knew about. Funny how you didn't mention them though.

 

[Toni]

Public transport is designed to maximize ridership in the most efficient design. Women’s bodies or needs are not a consideration. Instead there is a standard passenger of average size range—usually male.

I agree with your first sentence.

Your third sentence is cloudcuckooland crazy. It's a deeply, grossly, wilfully, fantastically, insanely, vulgar inversion of the facts. Nobody who regularly took public transport and had two brain cells to rub together could compose such a dishonest sentence and not call themselves an utter troll.

In my present area, there is no public transportation. But I spent years living in major metropolitan areas where I took public transportation on a daily basis.

Public transportation may be different in Australia but in the US, public transportation is designed to maximize ridership in the most efficient manner possible.

Thanks for (again) disputing my honesty. It's been real....

From what I understand, you have implied that you are larger than average. It's a fair point that public transportation and indeed, many automobile designs are not designed to accommodate individuals who fall outside of some established norm.

http://www.americanseating.com/transportation/uploads/tools-resources/T-BRED-16.pdf

Since each transit seat is generally a common size, the ergonomic guidelines are to meet the needs of 5th to 95th percentile users.

People size
The North American population has been getting larger for decades. Providing a seat frame and back with
a slim profile and using curvature to enhance hipto-knee room are key to providing optimal comfort on a bus. Maximizing seat
width is also critical to both comfort and personal space. Interior bus width and aisle space are set dimensions.
Most seating manufacturers provide one size seat for
all applications, but one company offers two seat-width options: a straight-sided 17-inch-wide
seat and an 18-inch-wide seat with a tapered upper section. This feature allows for maximum comfort while meeting industry
dimensional standards.

 

[ruby sparks]

It almost certainly will involve men being penalised.....

The idea that anyone is suggesting that, or that it would 'almost certainly' be an outcome, is merely in your triggered imagination.

Plus, of course it doesn't bother you that in the current situation, the arrangements are more suited to men's needs. Or did I miss the thread where you brought that up? You've started so many threads. Surely you must have started one on disadvantages for women, seeing as how your just as keen on equality for them. I mean, even if we were to say, hypothetically, that men, as a result of certain changes, had to wait as long as women, even that would be fair, right?

Not that anyone is suggesting it. It is also much more likely that additional female toilet space, particularly in new buildings, would have to come out of other floorspace. But the reduction in, say, restaurant space or commercial or retail or entrance lobby space would be minimal, as a percentage. The recommendations and requirements for men's toilets are unlikely to be reduced. Trust me. I have to meet these changing requirements as part of my job, which involves designing toilet provision in buildings.

Not to mention that your suggestion of wider seats on public transport would almost certainly involve reductions for others, albeit of both sexes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Most of the time I sit on the toilet to urinate because it's more sanitary. On the other hand, enough men pee on toilet seats in some specific public places, that when I go to those place, I stand.

 

[ruby sparks]

"The seat is required to be acceptable for a cross section of the British adult population; people ranging between a small (5th percentile) female, to large (95th percentile) male. This objective anthropometric data is contained in the BSI publication".

British Standards for seating on public transport.

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/1139/industry-standards-for-quality-seating/

That said, it is still fair to say that the seats will suit more women than men.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

I very much didn't.



No. I said that men spreading their legs was a postural response to seats that do not support much thigh length and seats that are closer to the ground than you would design if you had the average height of men in mind.

Regarding women's toilets, you then said in complete contrast that the problem (queues) was down to biology, not society.

I said men were more efficient at pissing, which they are. The reason I know this is because I've gone camping with no toilets whatsoever, and women have to engage in the squat and hold pose. Also, the biological fact that men can take their winker out and piss against a trough, enabling more piss events per square metre, is another reason men's toilet queues are shorter than women's.

You also added in that women already get as much space, if not more.

Which is (a) irrelevant and (b) incorrect to boot.

I dispute both but especially the second.

What's telling about your double standard is that the inadequacy of women's toilets is neither an unreasonable complaint, nor something only raised by angry feminists and nor it is an attack on men, nor does it involve men being penalised. Which also gives the lie to your other claim that it's feminism and attacks on men which really bothers you.

It almost certainly will involve men being penalised, unless women's toilets are expanded without encroaching on the space men previously got or without any additional cost.

This toilet talk also reminds me that Toni once objected to urinals in gender neutral bathrooms, even if the urinals made the wait time lower for everybody. She could not bear that men be allowed to keep any biological advantage they had, even when it hurt nobody and benefitted everybody.

So many outrages so little time.

 

[Toni]

"The seat is required to be acceptable for a cross section of the British adult population; people ranging between a small (5th percentile) female, to large (95th percentile) male. This objective anthropometric data is contained in the BSI publication".

British Standards for seating on public transport.

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/1139/industry-standards-for-quality-seating/

That said, it is still fair to say that the seats will suit more women than men.

How so?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is an apples to oranges comparison. Women sitting down to pee is sanitary. If all men were also sanitary, they would take more average time than now because they'd have to clean things up with toilet paper. I guess I'm just sick of the peeing on seats and peeing on floors.

I'm going to trigger people by coining this behavior manspraying.

 

[ruby sparks]

"The seat is required to be acceptable for a cross section of the British adult population; people ranging between a small (5th percentile) female, to large (95th percentile) male. This objective anthropometric data is contained in the BSI publication".

British Standards for seating on public transport.

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/1139/industry-standards-for-quality-seating/

That said, it is still fair to say that the seats will suit more women than men.

How so?

Because women are, on average, smaller. So even if a typical man can fit in the seat, it will be more often easier for a typical woman to do so.

The same could also be said for seats on aeroplanes.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

It is an apples to oranges comparison. Women sitting down to pee is sanitary. If all men were also sanitary, they would take more average time than now because they'd have to clean things up with toilet paper.

Is there some reason men can't sit and be sanitary too?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is an apples to oranges comparison. Women sitting down to pee is sanitary. If all men were also sanitary, they would take more average time than now because they'd have to clean things up with toilet paper.

Is there some reason men can't sit and be sanitary too?

Yes, other men pee on the seats.

Manspraying.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"The seat is required to be acceptable for a cross section of the British adult population; people ranging between a small (5th percentile) female, to large (95th percentile) male. This objective anthropometric data is contained in the BSI publication".

British Standards for seating on public transport.

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/1139/industry-standards-for-quality-seating/

That said, it is still fair to say that the seats will suit more women than men.

How so?

Because women are, on average, smaller. So even if a typical man can fit in the seat, it will be more often easier for a typical woman to do so.

The same could also be said for seats on aeroplanes.

But don't women have bigger hips?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

It is an apples to oranges comparison. Women sitting down to pee is sanitary. If all men were also sanitary, they would take more average time than now because they'd have to clean things up with toilet paper.

Is there some reason men can't sit and be sanitary too?

Yes, other men pee on the seats.

Manspraying.

Well yeah, then we must accommodate that, these men cannot help themselves.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Because women are, on average, smaller. So even if a typical man can fit in the seat, it will be more often easier for a typical woman to do so.

The same could also be said for seats on aeroplanes.

But don't women have bigger hips?

What is the difference between the hip bone of a man and a woman?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-hip-bone-of-a-man-and-a-woman

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I do not go around telling people they are feminists who claim they are not.

Many young women don’t call themselves feminists but the overwhelming majority are feminists...

If that's not claiming non-feminists as feminists I don't know what is.

She's allowed to have her own view on what is and isn't a Feminist. So am I. So are you. Our holding such definitions and applying it to see if others fit our definitions is not the same thing as us insisting that they adopt our definitions and self identify accordingly. That's illogical regarding me and it's illogical regarding Toni.