The Student Room Group

Should there be more unisex toilets?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Watch Key Phone
No, but all men can piss in a toilet.


But that takes three times the space and five times the time; as a facility it is fifteen times less efficient at processing queues in a busy period.

Can you imagine the chaos that would cause? The majority of any buildings would be taken up with toilets. The world would basically just turn into a huge toilet.

Is that what you want watch key phone? To live the rest of your life in a huge toilet?
I think it's fine to have more unisex toilets available for those who'd like to use them - and no, they shouldn't be restricted for trans or other non-hetero-cis people - but there are many, many practical advantages to keeping gender specific toilets in place as well.
Original post by cole-slaw
But that takes three times the space and five times the time; as a facility it is fifteen times less efficient at processing queues in a busy period.

Can you imagine the chaos that would cause? The majority of any buildings would be taken up with toilets. The world would basically just turn into a huge toilet.

Is that what you want watch key phone? To live the rest of your life in a huge toilet?


I'll leave it to a guy to clarify, but somehow I really, really doubt they stand so close next to each other they'd fit three in a row to a cubicle, that can't be very comfortable :colondollar: And five times the time? I think your statement may be a minor exaggeration.
Original post by Green_Pink
I'll leave it to a guy to clarify, but somehow I really, really doubt they stand so close next to each other they'd fit three in a row to a cubicle, that can't be very comfortable :colondollar: And five times the time? I think your statement may be a minor exaggeration.


In the space taken by 3 cubicles, you could easily fit 9-10 blokes in, standing around 3 sides of a square.

and it is much quicker - you just walk up, piss and go - there's no shuffling in, locking door, lifting seat, pissing, unlocking door, shuffling out etc
Original post by Green_Pink
I'll leave it to a guy to clarify, but somehow I really, really doubt they stand so close next to each other they'd fit three in a row to a cubicle, that can't be very comfortable :colondollar: And five times the time? I think your statement may be a minor exaggeration.


Reply 85
Original post by cole-slaw
I think its more the fact that men and women have anatomical differences that require different facilities. Not many women can piss in a urinal.


Most toilets have urinals and cubicals.
Reply 86
Original post by KingBradly
Most toilets have urinals and cubicals.


Not ladies' toilets!

The point being that a unisex toilet would have a larger cubical:urinal ratio, and thus would be less efficient.
Original post by lerjj
Not ladies' toilets!

The point being that a unisex toilet would have a larger cubical:urinal ratio, and thus would be less efficient.


Most unisex toilets don't have any urinals at all, hence incredible levels of inefficiency.
Reply 88
I think we should have more unisex bathrooms, actually. A lot of non-binary people (and some pre-transition trans people) don't feel comfortable using gendered bathrooms.
Original post by Blazar
I think we should have more unisex bathrooms, actually. A lot of non-binary people (and some pre-transition trans people) don't feel comfortable using gendered bathrooms.



With urinals?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly



Go to the end one, angle to the right.
Reply 91
Original post by cole-slaw
Most unisex toilets don't have any urinals at all, hence incredible levels of inefficiency.


But if they were commonplace, you would expect urinals to become more prominent. In fact, as their prevalence tends to 100%, you would expect their urinal:cubical ratio to tend towards optimum for the population. So it's simply an issue of whether it is more efficient to specialise or serve everyone...
Original post by lerjj
But if they were commonplace, you would expect urinals to become more prominent. In fact, as their prevalence tends to 100%, you would expect their urinal:cubical ratio to tend towards optimum for the population. So it's simply an issue of whether it is more efficient to specialise or serve everyone...


I think the reluctance to use urinals is related to projected issues of accidental exposure and public decency.
Reply 93
Women take longer to go to the toilet, so it's unisex toilets cause inconvenience to a greater number of men that women who are helped.

The answer is to have gender-specific, but marginally more womens than mens.
Personally I dont see the point. I'm a guy and I ****ing hate public toilets. Disgusting places used by pigs. I never use public toilets unless I'm at risk of soiling myself.

I think more toilets should have a system where everyone knows who the last person to use the toilet was, so they'll feel too embarrassed to leave **** in the toilet seat or bowl without cleaning it up or flushing the toilet.
Cleanest toilet I ever went to was one where there was a long queue right outside one cubicle, so everyone could see who was last to use it. Definitely made people clean up after themselves.

People can be really ****ing disgusting, doing things in public toilets they wouldn't do in their own homes and bathrooms because of the anonymity.

Not only for the obvious increased risk of sexual assault to girls and general feelings of uncomfortable, Why any girl would want to share toilets with disgusting men who can't piss straight and leave piss on the floors and toilet seat is beyond me.
Reply 95
Original post by lerjj
Not ladies' toilets!

The point being that a unisex toilet would have a larger cubical:urinal ratio, and thus would be less efficient.


Hmm, perhaps. But there have been numerous times in my life that the men's toilets has been out of use, due to cleaning or something, and I have been unable to go to the toilet. It's pretty annoying that in these circumstances its not acceptable to just use the women's.

I think in places where the toilets never get too busy it would be a good idea to have more unisex toilets.
If people want to promote gender equality, having unisex toilets is certainly not the way. Striving towards equal pay is one way, for example. As for unisex toilets, they shouldn't exist. It's not about gender equality, it's about the fact that men and women are biologically different and urinate in different ways. Why would a women want to see a stinky urinal when she's never gonna use it?
Original post by lerjj
But if they were commonplace, you would expect urinals to become more prominent. In fact, as their prevalence tends to 100%, you would expect their urinal:cubical ratio to tend towards optimum for the population. So it's simply an issue of whether it is more efficient to specialise or serve everyone...


I don't want to get my penis out in front of random women.
Original post by Watch Key Phone
Why do you think sexual harrassment is any more likely in a unisex toilet than in a single-sex one?


Men tend to sexually harass women. Women don't tend to sexually harass women, but sometimes harass men. Men sometimes harass men. Thus, men and women together would equal sexual harassment on both sides.
Original post by EconObsessed
If people want to promote gender equality, having unisex toilets is certainly not the way. Striving towards equal pay is one way, for example. As for unisex toilets, they shouldn't exist. It's not about gender equality, it's about the fact that men and women are biologically different and urinate in different ways. Why would a women want to see a stinky urinal when she's never gonna use it?


The argument tends to be more to do with trans* rights - although it's also helpful where you have one person dependent on another, such as a child or a frail elderly relative. Not sure I'ver ever heard someone come at it from a gender equality perspective.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending