Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

A lot of pools etc are now moving towards single large changing rooms which have enclosed changing spaces within them, varying from single person to family changing spaces.

I was in Germany with a school trip in the mid 90s and I discovered that their pools, or at least the on one Oberstdorf, had a mixed open plan changing room. An interesting experience for a 14 year old.

While not quite the same I was at a European wide training course in Germany last year; at several points people were called on to be demo models for various clinical examinations and it was pretty amazing how fine most of the continental atendees were with stripping down to underwear while the Brits were turning various shades of red and squirming!

A lot of pools etc are now moving towards single large changing rooms which have enclosed changing spaces within them, varying from single person to family changing spaces.

Michigan's Adventure, which for non-Americans is a waterpark/rollercoaster park, has changing rooms on the waterpark side that are all individual stalls, on top of being gender-segregated. So other than the risk of some randome d-bag sticking their head under the stall door (solved easily with floor-ceiling doors, duh) might as well be unisex outside of the sinks which are in a common room of each changing area.

The problem is that Americans are super-creeped out by public nudity of any kind, even on the other side of a wall so it's technically private nudity.

The setup in my hometown in Germany was pretty easy.

At the water park we had a large communal locker-room for all sexes and ages with attached individual stalls for changing clothes.

At all the lakes, and also on the lawns at the water park we have open air stalls where everybody just takes turns walking into to change.

That would terrify most Americans, lol. 'Anyone can just walk in and get me! Where's the door for me to lock! It's just sitting out there in the open, and anyone could stick their head under there, or be waiting for me outside!"

 d-usa wrote:
The setup in my hometown in Germany was pretty easy.

At the water park we had a large communal locker-room for all sexes and ages with attached individual stalls for changing clothes.

At all the lakes, and also on the lawns at the water park we have open air stalls where everybody just takes turns walking into to change.

No graffiti on that thing? Over here, that thing would most likely be layered in it. How is it kept so clean?

I bet if we threw the entire NC state legislature in Boston Harbor, there would be some nice tea to drink. Or perhaps the simple act of putting them in Massachusetts would make them react much like a acid interacting with an alkali.
In all seriousness, BS like this makes me ashamed to live in NC.

When I read this, my first thought was, "How much money does a urinal or trough end up saving anyways? It can't be that much."

I don't see this as a simple one-sided issue.

I live in 'a major city in Texas'. One of the problems we've had in our park areas are 'transgendered' persons that are really just guys in dresses hanging out in the women's bathroom.

No, I'm not knocking them for being transgendered. I'm saying that these guys are perverts that put on a dress so they can go hang out in womens' bathrooms. My ex went in there and they would wait until a lady sits down in a stall, then go sit in the next one, and lean in against the barrier and listen and breathe heavily- I'm sure you can imagine. There was also an issue with another girl I know that saw one of them trying to peep through the crack in the door. They've been known to uh... protrude... through the dresses, too. Yeah, I'll let you figure that one out.

I am not saying all transgendered persons are like this. What I am saying is, let's be honest- people are probably concerned about their children. And I don't care what you think about 'Prudish' Americans and our aversion to public nudity- when it comes to one person, their body, and their children... that's where your opinion stops being worth the air that carried it past your lips.

Now let's be real about 'religion' and 'declining services'. In America, it's easy to rage at Christian fundamentalists when they do this. Sure, I think it's a bit silly when they do it- last I checked, gay money spends just like straight money (it just smells a bit nicer). But what no one wants to understand is that- well, maybe that bakery could say "We won't do the two grooms/brides, but we will happily bake you the cake and let you purchase the toppers". It's not hard.

However, let's be real.

Find a Jewish tattoo artist, and ask him to draw a Swastika.

Find a Muslim baker, and ask him to make a black 'Infidel' cake.

I promise, if they decline your service the 'outrage' will be significantly... smaller.

Outrage is always bigger when the most powerful person is involved.

 skyth wrote:
Outrage is always bigger when the most powerful person is involved.

It doesn't matter. Either the law is for everyone, and across the board- or it's not. We can't make any exceptions based on what people perceive to be 'powerful' or 'marginalized'. Generalizing people and treating them as if they are anything other than individual human beings is what got this whole 'discrimination' idea rolling in the first place.

 Compel wrote:
When I read this, my first thought was, "How much money does a urinal or trough end up saving anyways? It can't be that much."

Depends on gallons of water used for flush, complexity of maintainence and repairs, how much space is needed by one vs. the other, affecting the size of the facility, etc.
As I think of it, in terms of saving water alone, a urinal would possibly be a good thing to install in private residences.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Outrage is always bigger when the most powerful person is involved.

It doesn't matter. Either the law is for everyone, and across the board- or it's not. We can't make any exceptions based on what people perceive to be 'powerful' or 'marginalized'. Generalizing people and treating them as if they are anything other than individual human beings is what got this whole 'discrimination' idea rolling in the first place.

Just a fact of life. Not saying the laws should be different, just the reason that there is more outrage for one compared to the other. Plus the items you listed don't seem to be on the same level. Nazis doesn't deserve special protection. Not sure what a black infidel cake is...but intolerant views in public accomodations do not deserve legal protection when they harm other people.

 skyth wrote:
Just a fact of life. Not saying the laws should be different, just the reason that there is more outrage for one compared to the other. Plus the items you listed don't seem to be on the same level. Nazis doesn't deserve special protection. Not sure what a black infidel cake is...but intolerant views in public accomodations do not deserve legal protection when they harm other people.

We don't get to pick and choose who's 'more' equal than others. And 'views' don't harm people, actions harm people. While I may find someone's views to be appalling or disgusting- I will, to the death, defend their right to express them.

Now, if you want to get to the meat and potatoes of this- anyone 'creating' something that would be considered the work of an artisan should be allowed to decline services for whatever reason. If I am an artist, and I offer to draw peoples' characters for money, I should be able to decline drawing a Nazi character, or a nude woman, or something else. My reason could be as simple as "I don't like drawing things like that".

However, if my job is to sell potatoes to people, I'm not creating anything. I'm selling a product, and if I refuse service to another person then I'm wrong- unless said person is causing a disturbance or something like that.

I mean, there is a limit to which a business must provide services either way. Nightclubs, bars, and other places consistently refuse entry to persons based on something as simple as a sports jersey, wearing their baseball caps backwards, or just being too many dudes. Some have even refused entry to older women to keep their patrons 'young and beautiful'.

I differ. I see a difference when you are talking stuff that should be a protected class like race or sexual orientation. I see Nazism in an entitely different light. Yes, I defend someone's ability to BE a Nazi but I will defend someone else's right to refuse to serve a Nazi. I do not feel the same about race or sex discrimination (and discrimination against homosexuals IS sex discrimination).

I used the lady's room once. In my defense, I was travelling back from Angola with a severe case of the squirts, and at the nearest toilets I found at the airport (not the one in Angola) the men's facilities were closed off for cleaning.
With pressure mounting exponentially, I broke the rules and used a lady's room. Just in time, too!

Needs must when the devil drives and such, but I don't think it's a very good idea to make using the opposite bathroom an outright offense based on that experience alone, and that's before taking things like LGBT discrimination into account!

...

Also, if people are so concerned about perverts, where's the outrage over homosexuals using the normal men's room where they can sneak a peak at straight men's equipment? I would think that the logical call for discrimination would be to ban gays from using their own gender's bathrooms!

Bran. That's totally excusable. I did the same to coming back from South Korea and hitting Seattle. Was a knee grabber and felt like I hovered off the lid four inches for seconds at a time

 Brother Armiger wrote:
I'm saying that these guys are perverts that put on a dress so they can go hang out in womens' bathrooms.

There are already rules about these kinds of things and more importantly that isn't transgendered in any meaningful way. It is just a guy in a dress who is a peeping tom. Targeting people who have done nothing because something else happened due to someone else seems pretty insane.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Brother Armiger wrote:
I'm saying that these guys are perverts that put on a dress so they can go hang out in womens' bathrooms.

There are already rules about these kinds of things and more importantly that isn't transgendered in any meaningful way. It is just a guy in a dress who is a peeping tom. Targeting people who have done nothing because something else happened due to someone else seems pretty insane.

Indeed, this is a good way to frame my issues with the stance that "perverts do it so that means people can't use their bathroom"

 Ahtman wrote:
Targeting people who have done nothing because something else happened due to someone else seems pretty insane.

I may have to use that quote in the next gun control thread.

But the pro-2nd side already uses that argument every time it comes up, 'don't blame the majority of gun owners for X'. Then a group, which shares a lot of the same users (but not all mind), comes on here and starts disagreeing with this exact same argument when it comes to a population that's different to them.

Also, if people are so concerned about perverts, where's the outrage over homosexuals using the normal men's room where they can sneak a peak at straight men's equipment? I would think that the logical call for discrimination would be to ban gays from using their own gender's bathrooms!

Exactly. Frankly, I find the whole thing pretty sexist as noone ever gives examples about female-to-male trans using a mens room. It feels like everything's all focusing on this hypothetical situation of male-to-female trans using their newfound ability to go into a women's room as an excuse to sexually assault someone with the penis they might still have like they are all deviant predators.

It's some sick paranoia, especialy the "think of the children" angle. There's just as much danger to my young son in a men's room right now from any creepy guy, as someone's young daughter in a womens room from some errant penis on a trans woman who is somehow there just for the sexual assault lols, rather than to feel frigging normal.

 motyak wrote:
But the pro-2nd side already uses that argument every time, only for a group which shares a lot of the same users to come on here and start disagreeing with it when it comes to a population that's different to them.

Pretty broad brush there, Hoss.


I happen to believe that the 2nd Admendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, is an inalienable, enshrined right. However, having a transsexual using the same restroom as the gender they proclaim to be doesn't bother me in the slightest. Most law abiding people who use most public restrooms go in, do their business, and leave. And the last time I checked, not all transsexuals are criminals.


The law is nonsensical from my point of view, and a waste of the General Assembly's time. Our State taxes at work. Yet Raleigh claims to be broke half the damned time.

That's why I went from the general 'pro 2nd amendment side uses that argument', which isn't inaccurate as far as arguments on this board go, to a less general 'a group which shares a lot of the same users'. That's where you'd not be from what you just said.

 motyak wrote:
That's why I went from the general 'pro 2nd amendment side uses that argument', which isn't inaccurate as far as arguments on this board go, to a less general 'a group which shares a lot of the same users'. That's where you'd not be from what you just said.

Fair enough. My apologies for misreading.

No worries, I definitely could have been clearer, I'll fix that up

 CptJake wrote:
I may have to use that quote in the next gun control thread.

Besides the fact that already brought up I'm also not seeing parity between being Transgendered and discussion how and when weapons are used. A lot of times the issues are brought during actual killings using firearms where this is more of a boogeyman situation where there is a mix of fear and hatred leading to meaningless government overreach. Conflating multiple mass shootings with treating Transgendered people as if they are perverts isn't a good argument, and probably one more reason sensible gun owners have to deal with irrational gun owners saying crazy things.

 Ahtman wrote:

There are already rules about these kinds of things and more importantly that isn't transgendered in any meaningful way. It is just a guy in a dress who is a peeping tom. Targeting people who have done nothing because something else happened due to someone else seems pretty insane.

"Not transgendered in any meaningful way"

Hey, good luck getting away with saying that to their supporters. I don't know if you've been paying attention to things lately, cis-scum...

2nd Amendment into a transgender bathroom thread......got to be kidding me right....rriigghhhhtttttt

So the Transgender blows away a Peeping Tom in the Transgender Bathroom....with a 20mm with 30 rounds in it clip. One round center mass rest was misses. Transgender a former Marine with Bronze Star of Valor, three Purple Hearts and a "Atta boy Ribbon"
Then I expect a 2nd Amendment debate.....again....for the 200th times...

One of the 2nd amendment related threads was a commentary on the argument getting used in both threads. One was a barely legible mess of a post. The former is ok, the latter is not. Please stay on topic.

 Brother Armiger wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

There are already rules about these kinds of things and more importantly that isn't transgendered in any meaningful way. It is just a guy in a dress who is a peeping tom. Targeting people who have done nothing because something else happened due to someone else seems pretty insane.

"Not transgendered in any meaningful way"

Hey, good luck getting away with saying that to their supporters. I don't know if you've been paying attention to things lately, cis-scum...

So it turns out this is illegal no matter the gender of both parties. Who knew.