Bathrooms confuse me.

I do find it humorous when I enter a handicap stall and realize that just the stall is larger than the entire bathroom of my first house (and that included a tub also.)

Why is it that it is illegal to park in a handicap parking space but everyone uses the handicap stall?

JohnRW1621 wrote: Why is it that it is illegal to park in a handicap parking space but everyone uses the handicap stall?

You should see the look of shame when a regular dude comes out of a stall and a wheel chair dude has been waiting for 15 minutes for him to update his FaceBook status. Oh, the shame.

In reply to JohnRW1621:

You can go to court for a ticket for parking in a handicapped parking spot if you use the defense that you identify yourself as handicapped, and thus chose to park there.

SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I have never built a trans gender bathroom, and am not complaining about it. If someone wants one, I'll be happy to accommodate. You are redirecting the issue by saying things I did not say. My point is the laws we are currently dealing with are ridiculous, and I fully expect them to get worse. The political impetus exists, and I've seen these kind of changes before. The cost is very, very real. Forcing businesses to spend money to make accommodations for imaginary people with problems that do not exist (like wheelchairs that can fly up a staircase) means less money available for real world problems, like raising employment rates, or investing in technological benefits or environmental improvements.

I think that a lot of the outrage arises over the finger pointing to trans individuals as being the threat, when statistically, the greatest threat to women and children are run of the mill straight men. Rather than correct the general rapiness embedded within many parts of dude culture, it's probably a lot easier to say that the problem is someone else.

Mitchell wrote: I think that a lot of the outrage arises over the finger pointing to trans individuals as being the threat, when statistically, the greatest threat to women and children are run of the mill straight men.

The real threat.

not a threat, unless you're driving a lexus down a highway in LA..

Keith Tanner wrote: I think the beef is that transgendered folks, unlike the physically handicapped, do not actually need different facilities. All existing bathrooms already cover transgendered people the same way they cover gay people and people with different colored skin. Why do we need to make laws to accommodate them? They're already accommodated.

Can't say I've seen a single law or bill or proposal that is pro transgender or promoted by the transgender groups.

What I do see is a bunch of laws and bills and proposals from haters and such, against transgenders and the like.

So I think you've got it backwards there Keith.

Already 4 pages in so I'm a little late, but I could stop all the NC bathroom law nonsense with one photo:

Shawn Stinson, world record weight lifter. Would you be ok with him using a women's rest room with your little girl?

SVreX wrote:

alfadriver wrote: So are you suggesting that there should be a separate accessible standard where there appears that there is no way a wheelchair can use it? That seems more problematic than just having one building guide. Bathrooms need accessibility regardless of where they are, so unless you come up with a proposal to separate the needs, one standard works just fine.

So, you think it's OK to have a law that requires building a wheelchair accessible bathroom in a place that is not accessible by a wheelchair, and permitted to be so by law? That's completely ridiculous. Even the building inspector and the architect agreed. It sure is easy to spend money when it belongs to someone else, isn't it? It's not a matter of having a different standard. It's a matter of having a standard that makes sense. If you were told all the cars you build had to be outfitted with braille labelled controls, you'd think it was pretty stupid, since blind people can't drive.

Given that I'm not aware of another set of building guidelines that make accessible bathroom that can't really see a wheelchair, yes, I'm quite fine with the one set of standards and guidelines.

You seem to think that having a second set makes it automatically cheaper- I don't see that.

Having a standard means that there's accessibility for all who need it, which means there needs to be a berth for people who have problems but not a wheelchair. Again, not all people with handicaps use wheelchairs, and many of those are capable of climbing stairs. You even admitted that you see that. You may see it, but it does not appear that you get it.

So no matter what, the bathroom you make has to be accessible. So what about them? Ignore them because a wheelchair can't make the second level?

And you seem to totally ignore the possibility that someone may install a system that would allow wheelchairs on the second floor. You don't need a full size elevator to that.

I'll say it one more time- not all people who require an accessible bathroom have wheelchairs, and CAN make it up stairs. You need to work with them, too.

foxtrapper wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: I think the beef is that transgendered folks, unlike the physically handicapped, do not actually need different facilities. All existing bathrooms already cover transgendered people the same way they cover gay people and people with different colored skin. Why do we need to make laws to accommodate them? They're already accommodated.

Can't say I've seen a single law or bill or proposal that is pro transgender or promoted by the transgender groups. What I do see is a bunch of laws and bills and proposals from haters and such, against transgenders and the like. So I think you've got it backwards there Keith.

And I disagree with you on that Fox. Discriminating against a transgender (to me) would be telling them they could not use any bathroom.

The only true transgendered people (again to me) are those born XXY. You can cut off all the appendages you want get breast implants etc., you can't change your sex.

SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I have never built a trans gender bathroom, and am not complaining about it. If someone wants one, I'll be happy to accommodate. You are redirecting the issue by saying things I did not say. My point is the laws we are currently dealing with are ridiculous, and I fully expect them to get worse. The political impetus exists, and I've seen these kind of changes before. The cost is very, very real. Forcing businesses to spend money to make accommodations for imaginary people with problems that do not exist (like wheelchairs that can fly up a staircase) means less money available for real world problems, like raising employment rates, or investing in technological benefits or environmental improvements.

So this great story about building an wheelchair accessible bathroom on a second floor that has no elevator is the issue.

Why did you need to add the story about transgender issues???? WTF is that all about, then?

A little over half of your original post has to do with transgender people. And the you rail on the fact that some kid got traumatized by a predator using the womens bathroom and then that your friend lost his job because he didn't want to do training for transgender bathrooms. That sure sounds that you are complaining about the issue.

Again, WHO IS FORCING THEM TO DO IT???? What law is on the books? Being that I've not heard of a single one, the people doing it are doing it all on their own, and on their own dollar, at their choice. How in the world is that a bad thing?????

You really amaze me, sometimes, Paul.

Cooper_Tired wrote:

Spoolpigeon wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Me. We only have one stall and I work with a bunch of pigs that can't pee in a toilet without peeing all over the place. At least they have the paper ass gaskets there for a small amount of peace of mind.

This. Ass gaskets are a must. A previous employer used to keep cans of spray Lysol stocked in every stall. Which was great because we worked with some serious swamp creatures

In response to complaints about the cleanliness of the restrooms, my employer started stocking Lysol wipes in the stall for a period of time. The intention was to use the wipe to clean the seat before you sit down.

One particular individual apparently misunderstood the intent, which was NOT to provide everyone with a free anal bleaching service . Poor guy was walking around like a cowboy from an old western film all day.

spitfirebill wrote: The only true transgendered people (again to me) are those born XXY. You can cut off all the appendages you want get breast implants etc., you can't change your sex.

So Caitlyn Jenner is still a man and must use the mens room.

Can't say I agree.

Discussing this with my brother last night and he told me of an experience he had at about 15. Travelling, he was in the Chicago airport and felt the need to poop. As he sat on his porcelain seat of ease the stall next to him was suddenly occupied by a pair of legs wearing very nice high heels. The owner of whom pulled down their panty hose and peed standing up facing the toilet.

Brother thought it was pretty weird that someone who so clearly was dressed as a woman wouldn't have gone to the ladies room and sat down like a woman would avoiding all attention. And this was 18 years ago, before people were all discussing such transyness.

In reply to alfadriver:

My discussion was about building codes and silly changes in them.

Your personal outrage, Eric, really adds absolutely nothing to that conversation.

I forget, what were we fighting about again?

Let's take a short breather here.

Everyone back to their corners.

Thank you.

David S. Wallens wrote: I forget, what were we fighting about again?

As far as I can tell:

I think we have a problem with the building code which requires segregation in ways that don't make sense, instead of pursuing gender neutrality like it should.

Someone else seems to think that I am the problem.

Pretty sure that summarizes the argument.

In reply to SVreX:

I think you're correct when you say we're on a slippery slope that could cost a TON of money. Legislators have a habit of thinking up complex solutions to simple problems that end up costing a ton of money just to make a problem worse.

Exposing your genitals (to a minor!) in any public place is a crime AFAIK, regardless of sex or gender. I don't think trans-specific training is a bad idea for teachers and counselors, but then again, what's in the training?

Oh man, I dream of individual stall bathrooms. Not those fake "oh look, we put up a partition that still has 1' open at the bottom and no ceiling" stalls. No, a proper, country club, floor to ceiling with sheetrock walls and a door single holer stall. We had those at the Cox Enterprises headquarters building. A fortress of solitude to conduct one's business, however one chooses to conduct it.

As for the building codes, it makes me think of the times I've seen stuff like this (probably done in the name of code compliance):

SVreX wrote:

David S. Wallens wrote: I forget, what were we fighting about again?

As far as I can tell: I think we have a problem with the building code which requires segregation in ways that don't make sense, instead of pursuing gender neutrality like it should. Someone else seems to think that I am the problem. Pretty sure that summarizes the argument.

See, that statement makes no sense.

Your building issue is with the ADA. And somehow that comes into play with gender identity, and that relationship does not exits.

So is the issue the ADA or the current trend of people accommodating transgender people? The issues are different.

In reply to slefain:

That railing is non-compliant.

(Actually, I'm serious. It's the wrong height, and code requires it to extend 1' past both the top and bottom treads, AND must return to the wall at both ends to avoid entrapment of a limb or clothing. It also appears to be too large in diameter).

Sigh...

SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: My discussion was about building codes and silly changes in them. Your personal outrage, Eric, really adds absolutely nothing to that conversation.

Ok, this one issue- I get the idea that it makes no sense to put a wheelchair accessible system in that. But what alternative is there for others who need the space but don't have a wheelchair? You keep suggesting that nothing be done for them, it seems.

Appleseed wrote:

JohnRW1621 wrote: Why is it that it is illegal to park in a handicap parking space but everyone uses the handicap stall?

You should see the look of shame when a regular dude comes out of a stall and a wheel chair dude has been waiting for 15 minutes for him to update his FaceBook status. Oh, the shame.

All of the women at my office are apparently such delicate flowers that they can't stand to hear one another fart or pee,* so they all use the handicap bathroom. Not sure if 100% are doing this but it has to be damn close.

Some guy at my office takes toxic waste E36 M3s that seem like they can't be coming from a healthy person. The stench haunts the bathroom for hours after the deed is done. The best evidence, oddly enough, points to a guy who is a total health nut...maybe some weird dietary supplement (or to be less generous, snake oil) he's taking. Still, I brave that bioweapon fallout and use the mens' bathroom, because I'm not enough of a E36 M3bird to tie up a handicap bathroom while owning a pair of fully functional legs.

*Yes I've found out this is the actual reason, formal complaints have been filed about the lack of soundproof bathroom stalls.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

bastomatic wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH:

The bathroom has an air-freshener-spray machine and like I said, it still takes hours. Someone seems to be dialing it up over time to try to give it an advantage, it's been on a sickeningly high setting for the last couple of days, the extreme amount of freshener scent is almost as bad now. It's becoming the monster to beat the monster.