A different take on public toilets
Several recent news reports have been concerned about who should use what type of public toilet in places such as schools and restaurants. Politicians in several states have suggested that people who are sexually “irregular” should be obliged to use the type of toilet facility that corresponds with their assigned gender at birth.
These measures are meant to discriminate against members of the LGBT community, and they illustrate that puritanical attitudes persist among some of us. In a few locations a more enlightened policy is practiced whereby the toilets can be used by anyone, be they be male, female or otherwise, but generally they can be used by only one person at a time.
In several European countries puritanical attitudes about gender and the use of public toilets have been largely eliminated. I first learned about this when I entered a facility at the International Airport in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, the facility was occupied by males and females. Urinals for men were mounted side by side along one wall, and there were many enclosed cubicles for women and for men who needed to do more than urinate. The facility had a row of sinks along another wall, and again, to my surprise, it was attended to by an elderly woman who made sure that the facilities were kept clean and that hand towels were available.
After I washed my hands she handed me a towel, and I noticed that there were several coin-containing bowls among the sinks meant to receive tips for the attendant.
After I left that facility I could not help but wonder why we could not be so intelligent about our use of public toilets. I am sure that there are very few people more than age five who do not know what the genitals of males and females look like. And in facilities like the one at the Amsterdam airport no one is exposing their privates to anyone else. In fact, I would bet that if some weirdo exposed himself to other patrons in that facility they would find it to be a very amusing absurdity.
Having toilet facilities in public places that are designated for males or females only, as we do in most locales, creates a different problem. Those for females are often numerically inadequate compared to those for men. It usually takes longer for most women to empty their bladder than it does for most men. Accordingly, women should be provided with more facilities than those consigned to men.
This fact was impressed on me some years ago when I attended football games at Memorial Stadium at U.C. Berkeley. During the half-time period there would be only short lines awaiting the use of the toilets in the men’s rooms, but the waiting lines for the women’s toilets would extend well beyond the entry doors.
In one unforgettable case while I was waiting for my turn in one of the men’s rooms several desperate women barged in and pushed themselves to the front of the lines to gain access to the cubicles. However, two of the women relieved themselves in the wall-mounted urinals. Many of us men in that facility applauded them for their brashness.
I have learned that in the recently remodeled football stadiums at Berkeley and Stanford the toilet facilities for women have been greatly expanded. Well, it’s about time! Let’s hope that the same kind of expansion occurs in all other such public places. Alternatively, it would be much more sensible if we adopted the kind of toilet facility usage as in the Amsterdam airport and elsewhere in Europe.
Charles Nicoll, Lucerne
Thanks, Mr. President
This is an angry letter to President Obama. Do you know that when Obamacare came into effect that he started cheating people out of money?
One of the things I found that affects me is part D. I have been making payments to Humana for a few months and all of a sudden the monthly fee went from $14.80 to $44 and then to $96. I called someone that got health plans and Part D. She said she didn’t know why that happened and would get back to me. When she called me back, she asked me did I ever have Part D and I said no. She asked me with the health plan that I had, did I have Part D. I said no then she said that is the reason why I’m paying so much for Part D.
I asked her what she was talking about and she said under Obamacare if you never had part D, you have to pay more.
She thought since I have insurance before it also covered Part D, as I was paying $497 for medical. I told her that the insurance never had Part D until lately. I had to get a cheaper insurance. Now I don’t have Part D.
Thanks Obama for nothing. I bet your family has Part D.
I wonder what Trump will do with our health insurance if he gets to be President — God forbid he doesn’t become the No. 1 man.
Jacqueline Baranzini, Kelseyville
Young parents
Be nice to your kids. They’ll choose your nursing home.
Brent Pomeroy, Lakeport
