[Jack_]

So now there's groups of people (let me guess, men with long beards, trench coats and gloves - right?) hanging around public toilets waiting for women and children to enter alone so they can rape them? That's quite an imagination you've got there.

Erm, well...for starters, never say 'never', and more to the point, they can never make anyone use any toilet so long as their gender presentation corresponds to the sign on the door, since no one would know any different. Which is the entire debate in this thread in the first place. And it's funny, since once again - no sign on a door can make any of these ~potential paedos and rapists and child molesters~ you keep banging on about refrain from entering a public toilet should they so wish.

You have no facts. Only fallacies.

[Denver]

You are making it into something it isnt and adding your own bit onto what i said so im done her daffodil

[Jack_]

No, you're adding bits on to your already absurd argument. Quite literally inventing dystopian nightmare scenarios that have no basis in reality just to fit your failing agenda.

Nice try, but you lost I'm afraid sunbeam.

[Denver]

Like you posted facts

[Jack_]

More than you did.

I literally posted an article full of them in the post before you began this whole charade.

[Mystic Mock]

I still can't get over that Stretch Armstrong is in charge of the US.

[user104658]

I would just like the choice to use ANY toilet that doesn't contain a urinal of any kind because they are - both in concept and visually - ****ing repulsive. Especially the ones in your more... Down to earth... Pubs. Just a long metal trough clogged up with piss and vomit and more often than is reasonable, a big fat turd.

[Kizzy]

There's that feminine flourish in your writing style at the end there TS? Well... seeing as it's cropped up in conversation, I'd have to say one of my objections to unisex toilets would be hygiene related.... SOME MEN MISS THE POT OK!

Phew, I feel better for getting that off my chest.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There's that feminine flourish in your writing style at the end there TS? Well... seeing as it's cropped up in conversation, I'd have to say one of my objections to unisex toilets would be hygiene related.... SOME MEN MISS THE POT OK!

Phew, I feel better for getting that off my chest.

I agree.

[Vicky.]

I would use unisex, no problem. However I also know many women/men would not. As you say older people are unlikely to be comfortable with it, perhaps people who have previously been raped/sexually assaulted who are (sorry) 'triggered' by being in close contact with the opposite sex, especially in areas where one is more vulnerable. I know this won't go down too well on here but...Muslim women too. Yes I know its the religion thats a bit backwards when it comes to womens rights, but they aren't 'allowed' in many places where men are. So for example...a Muslim woman who has been taking advantage of the female only time at the swimming pool...can now not go as gender comes before sex. Honestly...it worries me how many people are unquestioning about this matter and seemingly refuse to look at it any deeper, or have done so and don't give a crap.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would use unisex, no problem. However I also know many women/men would not. As you say older people are unlikely to be comfortable with it, perhaps people who have previously been raped/sexually assaulted who are (sorry) 'triggered' by being in close contact with the opposite sex, especially in areas where one is more vulnerable. I know this won't go down too well on here but...Muslim women too. Yes I know its the religion thats a bit backwards when it comes to womens rights, but they aren't 'allowed' in many places where men are. So for example...a Muslim woman who has been taking advantage of the female only time at the swimming pool...can now not go as gender comes before sex. Honestly...it worries me how many people are unquestioning about this matter and seemingly refuse to look at it any deeper, or have done so and don't give a crap.

Good points; especially the point about Muslim women. What are they supposed to do, not go out or hold it.

Definitely not thought through properly by anyone including those who defend minority rights who haven't actually thought about female minorities.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would use unisex, no problem. However I also know many women/men would not. As you say older people are unlikely to be comfortable with it, perhaps people who have previously been raped/sexually assaulted who are (sorry) 'triggered' by being in close contact with the opposite sex, especially in areas where one is more vulnerable. I know this won't go down too well on here but...Muslim women too. Yes I know its the religion thats a bit backwards when it comes to womens rights, but they aren't 'allowed' in many places where men are. So for example...a Muslim woman who has been taking advantage of the female only time at the swimming pool...can now not go as gender comes before sex. Honestly...it worries me how many people are unquestioning about this matter and seemingly refuse to look at it any deeper, or have done so and don't give a crap.

I'm presuming a typo there Vicky as I think most older women would be uncomfortable with it.

[Vicky.]

Also protesting this will get you labelled a 'TERF' mind...which will in turn invite death/rape threats and possibly exclusion from your social groups. As clearly, being concerned about any aspect of this means you actively hate transpeople and deny they exist. There are amusing cases where transwomen have been labelled TERFS...and the term for transpeople who are 'gender critical' or think that 'trapped in the wrong body'/sex dyshporia is a requirement of being trans...is truscum

[Vicky.]

Actually thinking about it...sexuality is no longer allowed to exist by law if this gender thing happens. LGB people will no longer have protections as...chosing sexual partners will only be down to personal choice rather than actually being straight/gay? Which leads us back to gay being a choice as its now just 'personal choice' for a man to be exclusively attracted to the male sex, and vice versa, no different to preferring tall people or whatever? And being straight/gay will be bigoted in itself as it is refusing to acknowledge ones chosen gender identity? This is the natural conclusion that I can see. Though I may be overthinking this. If sex no longer actually matters at all and it is bigoted to say it does (in any area) or that it is more important that 'gender' (which is a feeling in ones head, not measurable) then...everything that has roots in sex is actually bigoted...

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Actually thinking about it...sexuality is no longer allowed to exist by law if this gender thing happens. LGB people will no longer have protections as...chosing sexual partners will only be down to personal choice rather than actually being straight/gay? Which leads us back to gay being a choice as its now just 'personal choice' for a man to be exclusively attracted to the male sex, and vice versa, no different to preferring tall people or whatever? And being straight/gay will be bigoted in itself as it is refusing to acknowledge ones chosen gender identity? This is the natural conclusion that I can see. Though I may be overthinking this. If sex no longer actually matters at all and it is bigoted to say it does (in any area) or that it is more important that 'gender' (which is a feeling in ones head, not measurable) then...everything that has roots in sex is actually bigoted...

Hopefully common sense will prevail before this becomes a reality.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Coming from a male perspective.

Many women would not be comfortable sharing bsthrooms with men - it doesn't matter whether you agree with that or not, that is how many women feel and such decisions should be theirs, not men's.

It's not just about sex crimes although this is undoubtedly an issue as most victims of sex crimes are female and most perpetrators are male, that is fact.

It is also about about simple things such as comfort, dignity and privacy - things that often affect/bother women more than men. You don't understand that, as a woman I do.

It really isn't for men to say women shouldn't be 'allowed' their own toilets/bathrooms.

Just to play devils advovate here for a second - on what basis have you assumed I am a man? My name? You've never seen a photo of me (not that that would be an indicator either) so why have you presumed I am? I expect someone will quote this with the perennially unfunny and overdone 'did you just assume my gender' but I'm interested, considering the only thing you know of me is the text you're reading on a screen

Considering I'm a feminist, please don't patronise me by pointing out facts I already know. For what it's worth, many women who've I spoken to about this issue agree with me and don't understand why toilets are segregated and would have no issue using a unisex toilet (I get the feeling people tend to misunderstand what they actually are too, generally they're not a room full of cubicles in the regular sense but rather a collection of disabled-esque toilets that are little rooms with a floor to ceiling door and sink). Perhaps as the article surmised, it's a millennial thing.

The solution then - if people wish to continue operating on futile gendered lines - is to provide three sets of toilets, to give everyone a choice. Because while you're sat here (partially justified) lecturing me on how a woman's feelings are important to this issue, you're forgetting that if you aren't trans yourself, you aren't considering the experiences of trans people. It works both ways.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

This is true, however at the moment if you see a bloke in the womens, you can tell them to piss off or complain. If this 'gender identity bill' gets passed (in the UK, not USA) then gender identity trumps sex and you cannot do this anymore. You would be committing a hate crime by going to walk into the loo, seeing a hairy biker and walking back out because of this, as this would be bigoted as he 'is a woman too'. Its all silly when you look deep enough into it. Basically, if 'gender'' trumps sex, ****ing sexism can no longer be defined by law either! Sacked for breastfeeding? Not sexist...men can breastfeed too. And so on...

I do feel deeply sorry for transsexual people who have been caught in this cross fire as as I said, they have been using their chosen sex facilities for years and years with no issue. So they are being harmed also by all of this bollocks. A law isn't needed and will ONLY help those wishing to abuse it.

New builds, make everything communal, fair enough. Convert older places if you can afford it. But to say the sexed areas are open to all? What help does this do anyone? It certainly does not help transsexual people who are already using the female areas as they are scared of the male violence in the males...given any male can now stroll in anyway. I use this as an example as I am yet to see any complaints the other way round, infact from what I have seen transmen do not want to use the mens...

I don't think it would open the can of worms you think it would. Put it this way, there is no reason why at this moment a 'biological' female (for arguments sake we'll say in the possession of breasts and a vagina) who identifies as a female but has a beard and short hair (i.e. is 'unfeminine' in their appearance) couldn't and wouldn't enter a woman's toilet. What happens then? If we separate toilets on sex, the only way it could be policed would be through mandatory and intrusive inspection upon entry.

What this of course comes down to is the problematic and silly ideas about how both women and men should dress and appear to the world. We need to stop assuming that women and men must both dress and appear a certain way before they can be assumed to be 'real' men and women because our ideas of what constitute 'proper' masculinity and femininity are culturally formed.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Adam hasn't said that tbf. Also the overwhelming amount of sexual crime is committed by males. 95% I believe it is. So it kind of is an issue...clearly

Correct, but is it overwhelmingly committed in public toilets by strangers? I'm guessing not.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Male and female are not a state in ones head. They are a biological reality. Honestly..I have seen articles and such claiming that sex is the social construct No dear, that would be 'gender'.

I don't particularly want to get into this now but I'm actually writing an entire chapter of my dissertation on this, one I only began after having discovered through reading that it's not actually as unproblematic as one might assume (I used to hold the same position that you did up until a couple of months ago). So come back to me in three months, and I should hopefully be able to go into this a bit deeper

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Actually thinking about it...sexuality is no longer allowed to exist by law if this gender thing happens. LGB people will no longer have protections as...chosing sexual partners will only be down to personal choice rather than actually being straight/gay? Which leads us back to gay being a choice as its now just 'personal choice' for a man to be exclusively attracted to the male sex, and vice versa, no different to preferring tall people or whatever? And being straight/gay will be bigoted in itself as it is refusing to acknowledge ones chosen gender identity? This is the natural conclusion that I can see. Though I may be overthinking this. If sex no longer actually matters at all and it is bigoted to say it does (in any area) or that it is more important that 'gender' (which is a feeling in ones head, not measurable) then...everything that has roots in sex is actually bigoted...

Again, would rather have this discussion in a couple of months but on the slightly related issue of sexuality, demarcating one's sexual desires into neat little categories is also problematic and not as inherent as you might think. The work of Michel Foucault points to how discourses around sex brought into being the identity categories we work with today.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I don't think it would open the can of worms you think it would. Put it this way, there is no reason why at this moment a 'biological' female (for arguments sake we'll say in the possession of breasts and a vagina) who identifies as a female but has a beard and short hair (i.e. is 'unfeminine' in their appearance) couldn't and wouldn't enter a woman's toilet. What happens then? If we separate toilets on sex, the only way it could be policed would be through mandatory and intrusive inspection upon entry.

Well it doesn't need to be policed though? It hasn't been policed ever and oddly enough trans people have been using their preferred sex areas with no/little fuss? The honour system works pretty well IMO. Granted I only know 2 trans women, but they are both fine with the way things are now...one 'passes' easily, the other not so much in proper lighting anyway, but she has still never ever been challenged in the ladies...I know a load of lesbians also who are extremely butch and have never had issues.

For anyone wodnering how I know so many LGBT people...when I go out we go to the 'pink triangle' which is the gay bars and such
I don't really get this 'we would have to check for vaginas' thing if I am honest. Its fairly easy to tell males from females. And if it isn't, then the person obviously 'passes'.

Correct, but is it overwhelmingly committed in public toilets by strangers? I'm guessing not.

I don't think there is data on this. Also currently the data would say n o I expect. But...opening areas to everyone would change the data. There are many examples of places in America who have allowed the 'whatever sex you feel you are' and because of this, pervs HAVE taken advantage. There is actually a site that lists all of these instances and there are over a hundred in a short space of time. This tells me that yes, this would be a problem if it happened here.

I don't particularly want to get into this now but I'm actually writing an entire chapter of my dissertation on this, one I only began after having discovered through reading that it's not actually as unproblematic as one might assume (I used to hold the same position that you did up until a couple of months ago). So come back to me in three months, and I should hopefully be able to go into this a bit deeper

I don't really understand this part. Are you going into how 'sex' is a social construct in your dissertation? if so, I know this is personal but when you have done it, could I read it? As I honestly cannot see this at all. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Yes you get 'mistakes' of nature which results in some people being intersex. But this does not mean there are more than 2 sexes. Anymore than the fact that some people are born without arms and legs does not mean that human beings do not as a species have 2 arms and 2 legs. Natures 'mistakes' do not change reality. All in my opinion of course. I am open to change too as always but as it stands, I do not believe sex is a social construct. And I don't believe anyone can ever change sex. However I do believe 'gender' is a social construct. And that gender should be abolished completely as this would end so many problems. I kind of feel that for example, a male who likes wearing dresses feels he HAS to say he is trans to be accepted...which is ****ing wrong. If we get rid of the silly 'boys must do X and girls must do X' 'rules' that society has then I think we would see a decline in the amount of people who are 'trans' and it would just go back to those who have sex dysphoria being trans...as trans really is all about the dysphoria and again, I do not understand those who say it is not.

Again, would rather have this discussion in a couple of months but on the slightly related issue of sexuality, demarcating one's sexual desires into neat little categories is also problematic and not as inherent as you might think. The work of Michel Foucault points to how discourses around sex brought into being the identity categories we work with today.

I would disagree with this tbh. Most people know for sure if they are gay, straight or bi. Most gay men would be disgusted at the thought of shagging a female person, even if they 'presented' male and vice versa. Lesbians do not do penis anymore than gay men perform cunnilingus. Even bi people my not be impressed by someone who looks female but has a dick. Of course pansexuals are perfectly fine with anyone (within their tastes...not meaning they would shag ANYTHING ) but generally..I do think sexuality is pretty simple. Either you are attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both. Unless I have misunderstood what you are saying here...

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

For anyone wodnering how I know so many LGBT people...when I go out we go to the 'pink triangle' which is the gay bars and such

In Newcastle? Legit my favourite place, I used to go there all the time when I started drinking before I moved away

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

In Newcastle? Legit my favourite place, I used to go there all the time when I started drinking before I moved away

Indeed. I know its an absolute dump but I LOVE 'the bank'. It stinks, its always dirty, but the drag queens are mint and it just feels so...homely We tend to sit in the beer garden bit mostly. My first date with my husband was actually in 'the dog' (which has sadly changed its name recently )

The eagle scares the **** out of me. I only went in there once, was told of the bondage room and glory holes, and then I noticed a USED CONDOM behind me on the seat so njust...nope. never been back

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well it doesn't need to be policed though? It hasn't been policed ever and oddly enough trans people have been using their preferred sex areas with no/little fuss? The honour system works pretty well IMO. Granted I only know 2 trans women, but they are both fine with the way things are now...one 'passes' easily, the other not so much in proper lighting anyway, but she has still never ever been challenged in the ladies...I know a load of lesbians also who are extremely butch and have never had issues.

Well that is true, but my point was that as it is we don't - practically speaking at least - separate toilets by sex since the only way anyone self identifies and becomes intelligible to anyone else is through their gender presentation. Nobody knows the materiality of any strangers body until if and when you sleep with them. So thus, if a female who identifies as a woman but isn't stereotypically 'feminine' in appearance were in a woman's toilet - there's no reason why at the moment they wouldn't experience the questioning you mention.

I actually in a roundabout way think I'm agreeing with what you're saying, the campaigns that have brought this issue into public discourse are having the opposite effect in that they are making people realise that for decades they may have been sharing a toilet with somebody of the opposite sex.

I think what I'm trying to say is getting lost in translation cause it's confusing having to address all these different issues at once but as I said before the problem is and always will be the the assumption that a female body must feminine and a male one masculine.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think there is data on this. Also currently the data would say n o I expect. But...opening areas to everyone would change the data. There are many examples of places in America who have allowed the 'whatever sex you feel you are' and because of this, pervs HAVE taken advantage. There is actually a site that lists all of these instances and there are over a hundred in a short space of time. This tells me that yes, this would be a problem if it happened here.

It's still not an argument that makes any sense to me, because if someone is lurking about with the intention of attacking somebody, they'll do so whether or not a sign on a door allows them in. But if what you're saying is true, that's hence why I'm in favour of unisex toilets - because it would inevitably with more people make them safer.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't really understand this part. Are you going into how 'sex' is a social construct in your dissertation? if so, I know this is personal but when you have done it, could I read it? As I honestly cannot see this at all. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Yes you get 'mistakes' of nature which results in some people being intersex. But this does not mean there are more than 2 sexes. Anymore than the fact that some people are born without arms and legs does not mean that human beings do not as a species have 2 arms and 2 legs. Natures 'mistakes' do not change reality. All in my opinion of course. I am open to change too as always but as it stands, I do not believe sex is a social construct. And I don't believe anyone can ever change sex. However I do believe 'gender' is a social construct. And that gender should be abolished completely as this would end so many problems. I kind of feel that for example, a male who likes wearing dresses feels he HAS to say he is trans to be accepted...which is ****ing wrong. If we get rid of the silly 'boys must do X and girls must do X' 'rules' that society has then I think we would see a decline in the amount of people who are 'trans' and it would just go back to those who have sex dysphoria being trans...as trans really is all about the dysphoria and again, I do not understand those who say it is not.

You and anyone else is more than welcome to read it! Provided I'm happy with it of course....there's still a long way to go

Basically, what you discover when you delve deeper into the work on gender is that a lot of scholars have contested the distinction we make between sex and gender in the first place. It's not so much that they outright reject biological differences between humans, more than it is only through the paradigm of gender that we come to understand sex as something presocial. The argument that it is a 'mistake of nature' can also only be understood through discourse also, for what is 'normal' and 'abnormal' in the first place and who determines this, how does it differ across time and space and what agendas are inherent within such discourse? It's a bit like how their are critical disability scholars who reject outright the demarcation we make between 'disabled' and 'able bodied', the former can only be understood in opposition to the latter and that in reality, our bodies and lives are far more complex than such simple divisions (I must point out this is an area of which I've done little reading on though).

Back to sex...you might be surprised to discover that the commonality of intersexuality is more than one might assume, and goes beyond that of genital ambiguity. Further, there have been and are cultures around the world that have not divided gender and indeed sex into a binary, and 'two spirit' people have lived quite happily in society.

I feel like it's better to read something first hand than a secondary account of it (especially from someone typing up a quick response on his phone) so the meaning of someone's work doesn't get conflated though, so I can provide you with some relevant reading in the meantime if you'd be interested.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would disagree with this tbh. Most people know for sure if they are gay, straight or bi. Most gay men would be disgusted at the thought of shagging a female person, even if they 'presented' male and vice versa. Lesbians do not do penis anymore than gay men perform cunnilingus. Even bi people my not be impressed by someone who looks female but has a dick. Of course pansexuals are perfectly fine with anyone (within their tastes...not meaning they would shag ANYTHING ) but generally..I do think sexuality is pretty simple. Either you are attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both. Unless I have misunderstood what you are saying here...

I don't disagree that people generally do self identity their sexuality along binary lines, what I was referencing was the work of Michel Foucault, whose series of books The History of Sexuality sought to give a genealogical account of sexuality, and argue that far from the 17th/18th centuries being marked as an era of sexual repression (as conventional wisdom dictates), it actually saw a huge explosion of discourses around sex, through scientific investigation, confession, population management etc etc. It was through these discourses, like the pathologisation of homosexuality, that took sexual desire from being something that one did, to something one was. I would thoroughly recommend reading the first volume, it's not too long and is a fascinating account of how power really manifests itself in society. Here's some good quotes which basically sum up his argument:

Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.

The appearance in nineteenth-century psychiatry, jurisprudence, and literature of a whole series of discourses on the species and subspecies of homosexuality, inversion, pederasty, and "psychic hermaphroditism" made possible a strong advance of social controls into this area of "perversity"; but it also made possible the formation of a "reverse" discourse: homosexuality began to speak in its own behalf, to demand that its legitimacy or "naturality" be acknowledged, often in the same vocabulary, using the same categories by which it was medically disqualified.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

. Nobody knows the materiality of any strangers body until if and when you sleep with them. So thus, if a female who identifies as a woman but isn't stereotypically 'feminine' in appearance were in a woman's toilet - there's no reason why at the moment they wouldn't experience the questioning you mention.

Snipping a bit as I am typing between being beat up with balloons by the kids

This is where we seem to disagree. Even without 'feminine' or 'masculine' presentation, 99% of the time you can tell a male from a female. Facially even butch women look...female. males tend to have sharper cheekbones and all of the subtle little differences add up. I would say near 100% of the time I could tell a male from a female, on facial features, voice and body...not naked body, but just build. Its even more apparent in late transitioners. I mean, use Caitlyn Jenner as an example. Would ANYONE who did not know her story actually think she was a woman (meaning adult human female, not the circular meaning that seems to be given these days) from sight? Of course not, she is an obvious male bodied person. She may be a woman socially, but she is not and obviously has never been female. She is a male who likes to present in a feminine way. And she should be able to do that WITHOUT claiming womanhood. She should be able to be who she is without this trans business. I follow this guy on twitter, and this is how it should be...males being able to be themselves without claiming they are something they are not. He is amazing, and very brave for challenging peoples perceptions. https://twitter.com/streetvoiceuk

Infact I hadn't checked his feed today... 'Thirdly most men who claim to be transgender don't take hormones + are happy to use their penis for sex. In other words they are still male.' this is totally true. How on earth can someone claim they are a woman in this instance? These are the people causing the problems, not those with sex dysphoria...ad unfortunately they make up a very large percentage of the 'trans umbrella'. these would be the people who claim penises are female and that lesbians are transphobic for not sucking them off...

I also follow Miranda Yardley and her partner Helen who seem to be so...on point with everything. Both transwomen, neither claim to be 'female' and they describe themselves as a gay couple rather than claiming to be lesbians, as lesbians are female people. Like using female pronouns and 'presenting' as female...but accept that they aren't actually female.

Obviously if someone had started on hormones and such early in life, its very hard to tell. However, I actually totally disagree with using puberty blockers and hormones, especially given we don't know the full side effects of said treatment. I kind of feel its going to end up a bit like the lobotomy situation...where in 10/20 years time using cancer drugs to stop childrens puberty, then pumping them full of artificial hormones is looked upon as a...wtf were we thinking time.

[Northern Monkey]

This stuff is crazy really.All these oppressed people all competing for their rights to come first and stepping on each others toes in the process.Sometimes i think that too much 'progressiveness' causes more problems than it solves.

[Crimson Dynamo]

can people get real and realise that 3 types of toilets will never happen DUE TO COST AND SPACE

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

can people get real and realise that 3 types of toilets will never happen DUE TO COST AND SPACE

Neither cost nor space are particularly relevant when considering NEW establishments though. It's very rare for toilets to be so small that they couldn't be divided again by a third option. It's barely more than the addition of a few partition walls.

In some cases it would honestly be a cheaper option. My shop for example has a men's with two cubicles plus three urinals, an individual ladies, and an individual disabled. A waste of space AND money as really all we need is the two individual ones. In fact half the time that's what IS used because the men's is perpetually out of order due to shoddy pipework... We just let the men use whichever of the ladies / disabled is available.

Thus far though, you've refused to comment on the idea of admitting that not all establishments can be required to change immediately, but that new designs should change going forward. I suspect like Jack, to be honest, that you still wouldn't like that and your talk of cost and space is a smoke screen for just straight up not wanting it to happen...

Also interesting to this topic: even though out ladies is simply ONE toilet plus sink behind one locking door... I have previously had to stick a big handwritten sign simply saying "toilet!" over the ladies toilet sign, because some of the men "aren't going to use the ladies, are ye joking???" . Cover up the little picture of a stick person in a dress and they're suddenly fine with it. Bizarre.

[VanessaFeltz.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

can people get real and realise that 3 types of toilets will never happen DUE TO COST AND SPACE

So what are transgendered people supposed to do? Go to a bathroom where they dont belong and be bullied in? Not pee? Or as some would say dont change sexes?

I have read some comments about this issue saying "be happy with the sex you born in, deal with it" We all need to listen other people more and try to understand their problems, thats why we are all living together. Just because you dont understand, it is not your problem or you feel secure in your sex doesnt mean you should just wait other people to apply for your way of living.

Also LT if it does cost more money.. So be it. Money is just a stupid piece of paper that humanity created. It has no values without human lifes.