There is a solution to all of this. Unitary WCs. Each has one toilet, one sink, at least one method for drying hands and at least one sanitary disposal for non-flushable items. Mirror optional. A toilet brush might also be a good idea.
Communal rooms should go the way of the dinosaur.
That way, anyone, regardless of persuasion, intent or comfort level, can use a toilet in peace. And if they want to invite someone else in for safety, so be it.
All the problems with this solution are excuses, and usually not very good ones.
I’m leaning towards no. If you’re sat on the toilet in a small WC room, that urinal is going to be nearby and very close to face height. Also urinals are only really usable by half the population.
Sanitary wipes might be a better plan. Even better if they can be made reusable, but that could be too much to hope for what with the need for yet another bin, and the propensity for confused people to put things in the wrong one.
Students already get up to mischief in the shared bathrooms at my college library. Sometimes their “intent” runs contrary to the mission of the college–taking illegal drugs, setting off the fire alarm, making a giant mess with toilet paper everywhere.
A minor lack of privacy (private stalls, shared sinks) can help prevent bigger issues. If someone has a medical emergency (OD, for example) there’s a chance someone notices.
We’re in a budget crunch. Last I checked there was an unwillingness to pay for more than 1 custodian. The restrooms get dire.
edit: we do have 2 non-staff ungendered single seater restrooms, but I can’t see anyone approving retrofitting the existing multi-stall restrooms in a way that costs money, arguably decreases safety, and increases pressure on custodial staff.
The attendant doesn’t have to be a custodian. The member of staff with the office closest to each bathroom is now responsible for at least checking that bathroom once an hour. It’s a budget crunch. Everyone has to do their part!
And if that doesn’t fix the budget crunch within a week or two, the bathrooms are now being checked.
You’re devoting at least 15% of the library sysadmin’s time to bathroom monitoring (the bathrooms are a long walk from the offices) assuming the bathrooms are empty each hour. You’re also requiring them to knock on each locked bathroom door and get a response (currently you can check for people passed out by glancing at feet under stall doors). There’s also the overhead of figuring out who is on bathroom duty when the sysadmin is out sick or working from home.
The budget crunch is at the state level, the library itself has very little ability to change it. We’ve already reduced subscriptions and services and staff to a skeleton crew.
Tough times require tough measures. Either you find what the students do in there acceptable or you don’t. If you don’t, someone needs to check, and if not that sysadmin, then it’s going to have to be someone even further away.
One alternative would be to have the restrooms be locked and to be unlocked on request. How key management works with that I leave open.
This would be ideal if there was a suite of unitary WCs, because one key per room per person.
Not ideal in the case of emergencies, I grant you, but then, you don’t want to be using a filthy restroom in an emergency either, so I guess go the whole way into that and put a chemical toilet somewhere outside nearby. OR the old outhouse with hole in the ground if you can’t stretch to that.
Oh! I thought you were suggesting a way to implement unitary WCs.
As a way to handle the current bathroom issues, the current solution for my floor is one staff member has IBS and checks in on the restroom approximating their gender about once every 2 hours. The other floors and restrooms have their own idiosyncratic methods.
Philosophical question. In a jurisdiction that allows for full government recognition of someone not being either male or female, and if someone was “assigned NB at birth” then remains NB into adulthood… sounds like they wouldn’t meet the technical definition of trans.
This comment isn’t about taking anything away from anyone, it’s about a tiny little thought experiment.
Yes. The few times I’ve run into this has been great. I think people who are used to stalls initially feel weird when they hear about it but the toilets in this setup are enclosed with floor to ceiling walls and a door. It’s so much more pleasant.
There is a solution to all of this. Unitary WCs. Each has one toilet, one sink, at least one method for drying hands and at least one sanitary disposal for non-flushable items. Mirror optional. A toilet brush might also be a good idea.
Communal rooms should go the way of the dinosaur.
That way, anyone, regardless of persuasion, intent or comfort level, can use a toilet in peace. And if they want to invite someone else in for safety, so be it.
All the problems with this solution are excuses, and usually not very good ones.
Maybe also a urinal in each? Too many times have I accidentally sat on stray drips from people unwilling to put up a toilet seat in unisex bathrooms.
I’m leaning towards no. If you’re sat on the toilet in a small WC room, that urinal is going to be nearby and very close to face height. Also urinals are only really usable by half the population.
Sanitary wipes might be a better plan. Even better if they can be made reusable, but that could be too much to hope for what with the need for yet another bin, and the propensity for confused people to put things in the wrong one.
Students already get up to mischief in the shared bathrooms at my college library. Sometimes their “intent” runs contrary to the mission of the college–taking illegal drugs, setting off the fire alarm, making a giant mess with toilet paper everywhere.
A minor lack of privacy (private stalls, shared sinks) can help prevent bigger issues. If someone has a medical emergency (OD, for example) there’s a chance someone notices.
The problem with that is not the students, or the layout, communal or otherwise, but the unwillingness of the institution to pay a toilet attendant.
We’re in a budget crunch. Last I checked there was an unwillingness to pay for more than 1 custodian. The restrooms get dire.
edit: we do have 2 non-staff ungendered single seater restrooms, but I can’t see anyone approving retrofitting the existing multi-stall restrooms in a way that costs money, arguably decreases safety, and increases pressure on custodial staff.
The attendant doesn’t have to be a custodian. The member of staff with the office closest to each bathroom is now responsible for at least checking that bathroom once an hour. It’s a budget crunch. Everyone has to do their part!
And if that doesn’t fix the budget crunch within a week or two, the bathrooms are now being checked.
You’re devoting at least 15% of the library sysadmin’s time to bathroom monitoring (the bathrooms are a long walk from the offices) assuming the bathrooms are empty each hour. You’re also requiring them to knock on each locked bathroom door and get a response (currently you can check for people passed out by glancing at feet under stall doors). There’s also the overhead of figuring out who is on bathroom duty when the sysadmin is out sick or working from home.
The budget crunch is at the state level, the library itself has very little ability to change it. We’ve already reduced subscriptions and services and staff to a skeleton crew.
Tough times require tough measures. Either you find what the students do in there acceptable or you don’t. If you don’t, someone needs to check, and if not that sysadmin, then it’s going to have to be someone even further away.
One alternative would be to have the restrooms be locked and to be unlocked on request. How key management works with that I leave open.
This would be ideal if there was a suite of unitary WCs, because one key per room per person.
Not ideal in the case of emergencies, I grant you, but then, you don’t want to be using a filthy restroom in an emergency either, so I guess go the whole way into that and put a chemical toilet somewhere outside nearby. OR the old outhouse with hole in the ground if you can’t stretch to that.
Oh! I thought you were suggesting a way to implement unitary WCs. As a way to handle the current bathroom issues, the current solution for my floor is one staff member has IBS and checks in on the restroom approximating their gender about once every 2 hours. The other floors and restrooms have their own idiosyncratic methods.
Thankfully, there’s an even better, easier, cheaper, and just solution to this as well
Negate the ruling and allow transgender people to use the correct bathroom that is congruent with their gender identity
it is neither of these
its way better than bathroom bans but defintely not better than unitary wcs
it divides us, is heteronormative, and still excludes some trans people (those for whose identity there is no bathroom for (nonbinary people))
unitary wcs eliminate creeps entirely, segregation provides a flimsy superficial defense against some of them
IOW, MYOB.
International Olympic washroom, misunderstood yelling ouch bowel
obliterated by high velocity rocks?
evolved with the times into various forms perfectly adapted to whatever their niche may be.
just like pigeons, owls, crocodiles, finches, etc.
I believe that communal bathrooms are cheaper to build and maintain, hence we still have them, not because anyone enjoys using them.
That’s what he said:
they
internet accounts are they unless otherwise specified
i see, does make sense here
it still is good practice
especially that often “he” is used without consideration
Especially on Lemmy, where the users seem to fall into one of two stereotypes: ultra-nerdy dudes, and trans/NB people.
Hell, over at !unixsocks@lemmy.blahaj.zone, they may even fit both groups.
nonbinary people do fall under the trans umbrella
unless they are intersex in a particular way that they regard their nonbinary gender identity as matching what they were assigned
Philosophical question. In a jurisdiction that allows for full government recognition of someone not being either male or female, and if someone was “assigned NB at birth” then remains NB into adulthood… sounds like they wouldn’t meet the technical definition of trans.
This comment isn’t about taking anything away from anyone, it’s about a tiny little thought experiment.
why would government recognition affect whether theyre trans
but yes, intersex people can be cis enbies
More frequently it’s individual toilets and shared sinks.
Yes. The few times I’ve run into this has been great. I think people who are used to stalls initially feel weird when they hear about it but the toilets in this setup are enclosed with floor to ceiling walls and a door. It’s so much more pleasant.