Quote from: mac1 on March 13, 2015, 11:26:43 AM
This is just another reason why all public restrooms should be multi-user unisex with adequately private stalls and no open urinals.

Urinals should go the way of the dinosaur anyway.  I haven't used one in years now, but why on earth do they seem to make them perfectly parabolic so that no matter what angle you hit them at, it splashes right back on you.   It's worse when the guy next to you is the one splashing on your feet.   It's even worse yet when the guy next door splashing on you is also checking out your junk.

It's better to be pissed off than pissed on.

Quote from: Jill F on March 13, 2015, 03:41:48 PM
Urinals should go the way of the dinosaur anyway.  I haven't used one in years now, but why on earth do they seem to make them perfectly parabolic so that no matter what angle you hit them at, it splashes right back on you.   It's worse when the guy next to you is the one splashing on your feet.   It's even worse yet when the guy next door splashing on you is also checking out your junk.

It's better to be pissed off than pissed on.

Can't say I agree. They let one get in and out very quickly. One of the things I'm going to miss is being able to use one (but I've stopped using them now anyway). Today I passed the line by the men's and ladies in port authority bus terminal. The men's line was about half as long as the women's. It also moved faster.

Quote from: mac1 on March 13, 2015, 11:26:43 AM
This is just another reason why all public restrooms should be multi-user unisex with adequately private stalls and no open urinals.

I'm not sure I would like that. Using the proper restroom is somewhat affirming to me and I would hate to have a bunch of men dirty up the restroom that I have to use. Besides the restroom can often be a social experience (for women anyway).

Quote from: Jill F on March 13, 2015, 03:41:48 PM
Urinals should go the way of the dinosaur anyway.  I haven't used one in years now, but why on earth do they seem to make them perfectly parabolic so that no matter what angle you hit them at, it splashes right back on you.   It's worse when the guy next to you is the one splashing on your feet.   It's even worse yet when the guy next door splashing on you is also checking out your junk.

It's better to be pissed off than pissed on.

I never liked urinals but I felt for several years that I was being forced to use them. The last tine I used one was in 1997 and I don't miss doing so.

It's now on the agenda for the Government Operations Subcommittee for Tuesday March 17 at 8AM.  I'm guessing there will be another protest for that vote, but I'm not sure who is organizing it.

For those that are not familiar with the lawmaking process in Florida, there are 3 components involved: the House, the Senate, and the Governor.  This bill was drafted in the House, and requires a majority vote in 3 subcommittees before being voted on by the entire assembly.  Currently, it has passed the first of the three and will be voted upon by the second this week.  There is a companion bill in the Senate that also requires being passed by 3 subcommittees there before being voted upon by the full Senate assembly.  If the bill garners a majority passing vote in the Senate and the House, it will proceed to the Governor to be made into law.  The Governor has the option to veto the bill, but it can still be made into law by a two thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate.

The issue that comes up is that currently, it appears that the votes are largely partisan with the Republicans voting for the bill, and the Democrats voting against it.  The Republicans hold a large majority in both the House (80-39) and the Senate (25-14), and the Governor is Republican as well.

Fear mongering has always been a successful tactic in getting the lazy and the lost to follow the leader.  And fear has been a greater motivator in getting the people to the polls. 

Floridians elected a governor who prefers to silence those who say things he doesn't want to hear (like "global warming") and has forbidden the use of certain terms by government employees.  Censorship, maybe?  Where's the outrage from the citizens?  If the masses don't find problems with a governor who orders silence as a means to get what he wants, why would anyone expect those same citizens to care about the human rights of minorities?

But as same sex marriage was being passed in many states, the backward states "fought back" and began passing anti-gay laws.  I see the same thing happening here.  With same sex marriages, the anti-gay legislation seems to have backfired.  Instead of quietly suppressing equal rights and prolonging discrimination, as they had been doing, their blatant ant-gay legislation seems to quickly be bringing to an end to the very thing they didn't want.  Let's hope this blatant effort to discriminate against trans people sees a similar demise.   

Update on taking my #WeJustNeedToPee selfie:

My sis and I drove around this morning trying to find a local business that has a lockable men's room with a urinal, so I could take that selfie in complete safety (and with the urinal in the background). 

We couldn't find one!

We tried two banks, a health food store, an office supply store and couple other businesses - all were lockable, and all sans urinals. Who knew.

Next we're going to try my ex-brother in law's restaurant, after hours. If he's game.

Urinals are disgusting. What was your purpose in having one?

Quote from: Eveline on March 14, 2015, 10:06:23 AM
Update on taking my #WeJustNeedToPee selfie:

My sis and I drove around this morning trying to find a local business that has a lockable men's room with a urinal, so I could take that selfie in complete safety (and with the urinal in the background). 

We couldn't find one!

We tried two banks, a health food store, an office supply store and couple other businesses - all were lockable, and all sans urinals. Who knew.

Next we're going to try my ex-brother in law's restaurant, after hours. If he's game.

Quote from: mac1 on March 15, 2015, 09:53:02 PM
Urinals are disgusting. What was your purpose in having one?

It's a feature of a men's restroom.

I don't really hate them either if they are kept clean. They help move the line.

Quote from: ImagineKate on March 16, 2015, 05:07:04 PM
It's a feature of a men's restroom.

I don't really hate them either if they are kept clean. They help move the line.

But for you, a woman, they don't serve any purpose.

Quote from: mac1 on March 16, 2015, 05:15:28 PM
But for you, a woman, they don't serve any purpose.

of course

The point was to show women don't belong in a men's restroom and what says men's restroom other than a urinal?

Isn't it kind of sexist to say that a woman can't use a urinal just because she's a woman? 

For more on the #WeJustNeedToPee Twitter campaign, there's good info in this Huffington Post article. Should answer most "why" questions...

Just a fyi this is getting real close to locking. Few posts are in the right field

It would be a shame to have it locked for silly out of topic posts.

Keep inside the original post content of transgender bathroom bill in Florida.

Sign banning boys over 6 from ladies' room sparks debate

http://www.today.com/parents/sign-banning-boys-over-6-ladies-room-sparks-debate-2D80545254

A. Pawlowski TODAY contributor |March 12, 2015

"Restroom stops often present a dilemma for moms out and about with their young sons: When is it OK to let a boy tag along inside the ladies' room and when is he too old for that practice?"

"A sign posted outside a restroom at a mall in Oklahoma declaring that boys older than 6 should use the men's room is sparking a debate among families".

===========================
I saw something about someone posting a sign in a mall saying boys over 6 years old must use the men's restroom.

Um, no and go ahead and try to make me. I am not letting my little son go all alone in a public men's restroom and I'm certainly not going in one with him...

edited by news staff for content per publishing rules

Quote from: ImagineKate on March 17, 2015, 10:02:22 AM
Sign banning boys over 6 from ladies' room sparks debate

http://www.today.com/parents/sign-banning-boys-over-6-ladies-room-sparks-debate-2D80545254

A. Pawlowski TODAY contributor |March 12, 2015

"Restroom stops often present a dilemma for moms out and about with their young sons: When is it OK to let a boy tag along inside the ladies' room and when is he too old for that practice?"

"A sign posted outside a restroom at a mall in Oklahoma declaring that boys older than 6 should use the men's room is sparking a debate among families".

===========================
I saw something about someone posting a sign in a mall saying boys over 6 years old must use the men's restroom.

Um, no and go ahead and try to make me. I am not letting my little son go all alone in a public men's restroom and I'm certainly not going in one with him...

Yes, because some idiot randomly posts a sign like that, it must be legally binding.  Makes me wonder about the real intentions of the sign poster, quite frankly.

Quote from: ImagineKate on March 17, 2015, 10:02:22 AM
Sign banning boys over 6 from ladies' room sparks debate

http://www.today.com/parents/sign-banning-boys-over-6-ladies-room-sparks-debate-2D80545254

A. Pawlowski TODAY contributor |March 12, 2015

"Restroom stops often present a dilemma for moms out and about with their young sons: When is it OK to let a boy tag along inside the ladies' room and when is he too old for that practice?"

"A sign posted outside a restroom at a mall in Oklahoma declaring that boys older than 6 should use the men's room is sparking a debate among families".

===========================
I saw something about someone posting a sign in a mall saying boys over 6 years old must use the men's restroom.

Um, no and go ahead and try to make me. I am not letting my little son go all alone in a public men's restroom and I'm certainly not going in one with him...

Kate,

I still say that the question of restroom usage would be eliminated if all public restrooms were multi-user unisex. It would also: save space; save duplication; reduce cost; eliminate the need for separate single-user family restrooms; and be safer for everybody as you would be less likely to be alone and subject to encountering a predator.

Quote from: mac1 on March 17, 2015, 11:22:11 AM
Kate,

I still say that the question of restroom usage would be eliminated if all public restrooms were multi-user unisex. It would also: save space; save duplication; reduce cost; eliminate the need for separate single-user family restrooms; and be safer for everybody as you would be less likely to be alone and subject to encountering a predator.

I would still feel safer if each stall had a "panic button" in this case.  Real predatory creeps do exist, and a unisex bathroom sort of sounds like a potential proverbial barrel in which to shoot fish.

Quote from: mac1 on March 17, 2015, 11:22:11 AM
Kate,

I still say that the question of restroom usage would be eliminated if all public restrooms were multi-user unisex. It would also: save space; save duplication; reduce cost; eliminate the need for separate single-user family restrooms; and be safer for everybody as you would be less likely to be alone and subject to encountering a predator.

Sounds coercive to me. 90+% of the population does not WANT to share a restroom with people of the opposite gender. I would be very uncomfortable with any solution that forces that number of people to do something they don't want.

Agree with Suzi. The family restroom for kids is a solution that works as well as allowing parents to go with them to their restroom