Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

OK, well, plenty of younger women squat instead of actually sitting down. It's not always a clean process. Women's public restrooms also occasionally have blood in weird places.

The point is: I am fine with sharing a unisex restroom with dudes, and have done so in the past.

In a place that only has single stall toilets, go ahead, and make them all unisex.

In California, the building code for unisex toilets requires that they all be single stall and have doors reaching down to the floor (so you can't camp outside of a stall when you see women's shoes). They're actually much more private than men's toilets and women's toilets.

You can never be too sure, but TBF is also the trope that some women prefer men bathrooms, because they're cleaner, since shaky business can be outsourced to urinals. Something something about many women not wanting to touch public restrooms with their butt.

Oftentimes, women take over/coopt men's toilets because the women's toilets have too few stalls for women to handle their biological needs (i.e. menstruating, peeing while pregnant). I have never heard of any woman using a men's restroom outside of this particular situation.

Vector: Re, specific instance of LGBT supporter being a karen--

See None's behavior prior, and his/her reaction to being called out for specific behavior.  While true they are blissfully unaware that I have been the butt of that kind of shit so many times I could fucking puke, which is why I shut them down so fucking hard, they still acted like a Karen over it.

So, first, based on None's previous comments I don't believe that they are LGBTQ. We're now down to "LGBTQ allies are acting like 'Karens,' which encourages anti-trans legislation."

Second, I am really struggling to see where None participated in the key hallmarks of "Karen" behavior, namely: resorting to power (manager, police, violent husband) in order to force someone else, with less power than them, to behave the way they want, usually due to claiming a threat that doesn't actually exist. I.e.: calling the police over the public presence of a Black bird-watcher due to feeling "unsafe."

Does Karen just mean "someone who disagrees with you?" I am really struggling to see this.

I will add that nonbinary people want unisex toilets, not "gender-affirming" toilets.

Uh, yeah, I know, I just quoted one saying that, namely, wierd, who just identified as genderqueer like two posts ago and wants unisex toilets.

and

*sigh*

Many young/middle-aged cis women actually don't sit down while using public toilets. Man, this is the crazy misinformation thread today ...

I think everyone knows that most women don't literally sit down like you would in a chair in public toilets, but to men, that's still a sitting position compared to standing up. That said, even if most women stood, that wouldn't be contradictory to what wierd said, which was that some men regard any sitting position as "for girls", not that all girls or any girls do it. The two statements are effectively logically unrelated.

What I'm saying is, I don't know what your point with either of these posts was and I feel like you're getting annoyed and checking out of the conversation. Which is fine, to be sure, you don't have to involve yourself in it, but it does leave me wondering why you're... still involving yourself in it, just in this kind of low-effort sort of snipey way.

With the first point, you said that the desiderata is gender-affirming toilets. I mentioned that there is a segment of the population not served by binary access to restroom facilities.

With the second point, I am explaining that women's toilets are actually not always/generally clean of being sprayed on, and that therefore the claim that often comes up -- that women wouldn't want to use unisex toilets due to dirtiness -- doesn't really make complete sense. I'm mentioning this not because I think you or somebody else has brought it up specifically in thread, but because I regularly hear it as a talking point in this variety of conversation.

Regarding effort: being involved in this conversation in its present form is causing me a great deal of emotional pain. I am the person who brought up the topic because the news in and of itself caused me pain, and refusing myself to involve myself in it will not solve the problem.

I am fine with the current amount of effort and my present level of involvement. If you do not want to read my posts, you can mute me.

I am of the opinion that gendered bathrooms in general are an outmoded concept, and unisex bathrooms should be the norm everywhere.

I agree. It seems that women are mainly the ones who insist on separation; this is funny to me, since women's bathrooms are objectively worse.

However, unisex restrooms provide neither "hypothetically assumed to be safer" (which women's restrooms aren't really, but are perceived to be) nor "gender-affirming", which are the relevant desiderata from the perspective of the discussion.

I think the misunderstanding is that a bathroom doesn't need to be actively gender-affirming.  The... discomfort/humiliation comes from having to use a wrong one.  I think most trans people would happily use a unisex toilet (particularly a single-occupancy one of course).

And it's not so much that women's bathrooms are inherently safer, but that it's often dangerous to enter a bathroom with the wrong gender.  A bearded transman in a women's bathroom causes a scene too - just imagine the upset Karens reacting.  I would assume that feminine people forced to use men's bathrooms face more outright violence, but I don't know that and women can be brutal too.

There have been several cases here in NC where our bathroom bill led to androgynous-looking cis people getting harassed by other cis people.  The whole thing is bonkers.  The TN bill is literally harmful, besides being laughable.

^ This is a good post.

[dragdeler]

-

[wierd]

Dogwhistles? Mislabeling?

I say 'desired' like that because I'm not sure what the appropriate way to say 'correct' in the context since you could either infer it's 'correct for their gender' or 'correct for their assigned sex,' and the topic is clearly important enough that it's being legislated so 'desire' doesn't seem to cut it.

Here, I will refresh your memory.

Look, patience and inaction is not going to change the rate of ardent oppositionists, because opposing things is just What They Do. They will be a constant because there exists a sociopolitical body that exists solely to oppose things and not change, and this is not going to change with age. The propaganda machine is not going to stop turning and telling people to close their ears and minds if the conversation for progress goes quiet- bigoted elders may raise bigoted children and they'll never hear to the contrary if we stop making conversation.

I wasn't even referring to the young or old in my previous point- opposition to social change comes from any age. They will ALWAYS have ammo, because they will always find something to blame or make a caricature when reality doesn't have a perfect example. They're defending the status quo, and doing that is easy because it's not hinged on making a point or upholding the truth. It will always be an uphill battle when asking for change, because 'no' is so much easier to do.

I won't advocate we sit around and wait for more Tennessee laws be passed and quietly hope that they turn themselves around at some point in fear that some Tucker Carlson numbfuck on some news channel is going to make more pearl-clutching speeches about gendered bathrooms or hope quietly that my folks eventually come around to the BLM movement while the legal system systematically fails minorities, because these things are going to continue happening regardless of the noise anyone makes about changing them.

I already addressed that elephant in the room:

NOTE-- this is NOT an advocation of "not pushing".  DO NOT CONSIDER IT SO, IT IS NOT THAT THING.

What it actually IS, is an admonishment against pushing TOO HARD, to the point of being obstinate, and offensive, rather than constructive and considerate.

The notion that "You CANT push too hard!" is at fault here.

Again, it is not "Do nothing!! Things will get better all on their own! Pinkyswear!"

If you are going to try to pretend that is my position, I have nothing further to say to you, because you are beating a strawman.
(and I am VERY VERY sick of that tactic being used on me. Read what I wrote, and argue against what I have said, not what you believe it means, or what is most convenient for you to believe.)

This is where I called out the specific behavior, and the specific strawman.  Your response was pure petulance--

That is why I affirmed to you that I am not actually your enemy, I REALLY HONESTLY TRULY AND DEEPLY DO want LGBT rights to go forward!

Your reaction to this, was to treat it as a dog whistle, to wit.

Vector:

While Karen often DOES do those things, those things are not actually required for the descriptor of Karen.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/karen/

Slang dictionary
Karen

[ kair-in ]
What does Karen mean?

Karen is a pejorative slang term for an obnoxious, angry, entitled, and often racist middle-aged white woman who uses her privilege to get her way or police other people's behaviors.

As featured in memes, Karen is generally stereotyped as having a blonde bob haircut, asking to speak to retail and restaurant managers to voice complaints or make demands, and being an anti-vaxx , Generation X soccer mom.

In 2020, Karen spread as a label used to call out white women who were captured in viral videos engaging in what are widely seen as racist acts.
Karen was one of the top trends in 2020. Read our 2020 Word of The Year article to see why.

Ironically, I *AM* being a Karen right now, and should stop.

However, pretending to play dumb when called out on misbehavior multiple times kinda torques my bolts.

[Vector]

So, I'm seeing "using your privilege to get your way and police other people's behaviors" as the key description that distinguishes "Karen" from "shrew," "bitch," "cunt," or "virago." The latter of these are gendered slurs for people who are irritating, so I assumed that you were referring to the "policing" aspect of the definition.

[wierd]

Yes.  None was attempting to silence my opinion, by leveraging their privilege. (Specifically, the cred of being an LGBT supporter)

They did not like being shut down on that line of attack.


I DID in fact reciprocate in being a Karen, by using my own privilege. (as actual LGBT affiliated sexuality)

[Maximum Spin]

With the first point, you said that the desiderata is gender-affirming toilets. I mentioned that there is a segment of the population not served by binary access to restroom facilities.

Yeah but... in the context, surely it was clear? I said it was a desideratum from the perspective of this discussion, ie, there are people who would not be served by unisex toilets. This doesn't mean that there aren't also people not served by binary toilets. There can be more than one kind of person and more than two kinds of toilets.

With the second point, I am explaining that women's toilets are actually not always/generally clean of being sprayed on, and that therefore the claim that often comes up -- that women wouldn't want to use unisex toilets due to dirtiness -- doesn't really make complete sense. I'm mentioning this not because I think you or somebody else has brought it up specifically in thread, but because I regularly hear it as a talking point in this variety of conversation.

I see. I do not regularly hear this as a talking point, and actually regularly hear the opposite: that women prefer men's toilets because they are cleaner. I hope you can see why it then seemed weird to bring up a rebuttal to it without even establishing it as a thing, since it's not a thing in my experience. If it is in yours, I understand where you were coming from, at least.

I am fine with the current amount of effort and my present level of involvement. If you do not want to read my posts, you can mute me.

I have absolutely no issue with your posts myself, I'm just genuinely concerned that you seem to be causing yourself emotional pain. If you believe that this is better than the alternative, carry on, I suppose, though I have to caution that it won't make things much more constructive (which I suspect you realize).

I think most trans people would happily use a unisex toilet (particularly a single-occupancy one of course).

I mean, I can't speak for 'most', but I have indeed spoken to trans (and cis for that matter) people who would not. I'm trying to accommodate them too.

[Doomblade187]

The nice thing about unisex toilets is that they're easy to implement. Unfortunately this will most likely not be the result of transphobic laws.

[None]

Great, it's of my opinion that leveraging the benevolence of corporations to enact social change as a function of being a slow intergenerational process is one that largely strips action away from the individual and happens much too slowly for real change (patience and inaction), particularly as, since we're seeing with Tennessee, rights are hemorrhaging as is. I fundamentally disagree with this course of action.

As we've seen, 'pushing too hard' and 'being a fucking Karen' is largely subjective. By seeing everything else I've posted thereafter as 'pure petulance,' you've drawn the line and chosen not to consider my take. Where that line is for whomever else is arbitrary, and I'm pretty sure that line will have moved with me trying to clarify here such that this is still petulance. This is why I advocate for discarding this line of thought- someone who disagrees with your stance will shut it down wherever you try to compromise and therefore trying to build your strategy around 'not crossing that line' is futile.

Hope this clarifies. No, I'm not LGBTQ, or I'm in its very outer orbit. As stated somewhere else, I try to be an ally, but am more successful at being an idiot. I'm gonna go back and re-read my posts to see if my posts do come off as trying to silence you for better consideration later.

[wierd]

If you want to state that using one's agency to leverage the real and effective power of corporations to combat the situation in Tenn is somehow "Doing nothing", I am willing to indulge the exercise.

I draw the line however, and strawmanning me in such a way, that such a position is immediately presumed 100% correct.


Like or not, those corporations wield that power.  The thrust of this absurd law, is to try and abuse that power, by coopting it.  The proponents believe that they are so numerous, that they can damage the reputation and bottom line of those corporations by requiring this absurd farce of a plaquard. (that is to say, by their displaying them, the "GOOD, CONCERNED CITIZENS!" will not shop there, and this will harm those businesses that do.)

The inverse is actually true-- as pointed out in the article I cited.  Those companies want to just leave Tenn high and dry.  That would actually harm EVERYONE in that state, including the LGBT people that live there. (This is especially true, since food deserts and such, ARE FUCKING REAL, and LGBT people tend to also be financially disadvantaged, as a result of systemic job discrimination!)

Rather than view it as "GETTING IN BED WITH EVIL NEFARIOUS BASTARDS, AND DOUBLECROSSING THE MOVEMENT! HOW DARE YOU!", you should instead view it as "There is real power there that you can leverage.  You SHOULD. Their CURRENT plan will hurt lots of innocent people, because of these assfucks. This course of action will avert that outcome, subvert the intended outcome of this law, and harness that power for your movement."

I personally do not consider doing that, to be "Patience and Inaction."

[Starver]

It's not helping that this thread is one of the ones with bad "New message" anchoring due to past editings, of course, but the sheer volume of back'n'forth with no obvious sign of progress isn't helping the S2N ratio.

[wierd]

I do apologize, I really do.

Vector: Apparently I can submit myself as a Karen and be hoist by my own petard. :$

Still, I feel clarity as to the actual substance of my position, (as opposed to the misconceptions about it, and its origins) needs to be very plainly stated.

I apologize for the inconvenience. Hopefully it is not required further.

[voliol]

Lots of fun reading here tonight, the pages are adding on as I read. And I know I will get ninja’d, but that’s fine.

I’m not prepared to take a dive into the main topic here, because I’m not equipped well enough with wits nor knowledge, but I will comment on one thing: I’ve always found the ”women will get disgusted/disencouraged by the behavior of men” (and vice versa) arguments funny. Not in cases where it’s about men’s behaviour towards women specifically, but ones like the bathroom discussion where it was oh so distressing for women to be exposed to the bad toilet hygiene of men, despite men already being exposed.*

I remember going to middle school (granted not in the US so do reprimand me if I’m going off-topic) and the PE lessons being gender** separated, apparently because the boys were to unruly and competetive when playing sportsball for the girls to handle***. That might have been true, because those boys did exist and probably did not have as many counterparts among the girls, so I am sure it was unsufferable for the girls before. But by separating us half of the class were still subjected to these unsufferable boys, possibly even worse as they were now twice as many in proportion, and in an environment devoid of people they’d like to be nice around. Were they really doing us kids a favour in general, or were they just being sexist?

*I realize know you might be talking about the lack of urinals. If you were, sorry for misrepresenting you.

**Or practically sex, because this was middle school and I’m pretty sure any trans folks would still have been closeted. Because middle school sucks.

***Or at least that was the reason I heard when I questioned it. It might as well been the ghost of older ideas of sex separation (oh no, they’re going to get so distracted) parading as some kind of faux progressiveness.

[wierd]

I can see that simultaneously in multiple directions.

Firstly-- There is an unassailable statistic about females suffering rape, and sexual assault.  That DOES need to be considered.

Second-- schools often misattribute toxic masculinity to "harmless boy play".  Much to the detriment of non-toxic boys.

Third-- Segregating JUST the toxic individuals (both toxic boys and toxic girls), is harmful to those children, and has questionable benefit to the other students (as it denies them even passive exposure to those menaces, and leaves them woefully unprepared for adult life. Dicks and cunts are real. They exist in adult life in copious quantities. Instead of kicking you and taking your lunch money though, they instead bully you at the traffic stop, and kick out your tail light.

I do not believe that there even *IS* a universally "good" solution.

[Lord Shonus]

I'll just leave this here until I find some medieval history memes relevant to this thread...

This is probably a myth. A&Ws was already failing to compete with McDonalds for a large number of reasons, and their slightly-bigger-burger failed to stem the tide. Primarily because "this burger has the most meat" is only one small part of customer's buying preferences, and the 1/3 pounder failed to address any of them.


The oft-repeated claim comes not from market research or surveys (as is commonly claimed), but from an A&Ws official that simply declared it as fact.

[Random_Dragon]

This is probably a myth. A&Ws was already failing to compete with McDonalds for a large number of reasons, and their slightly-bigger-burger failed to stem the tide. Primarily because "this burger has the most meat" is only one small part of customer's buying preferences, and the 1/3 pounder failed to address any of them.


The oft-repeated claim comes not from market research or surveys (as is commonly claimed), but from an A&Ws official that simply declared it as fact.

Did feel amusingly fitting for the moment at least.