haha I think its funny.
Also, I just saw use of the word "apartheid" in the article... is that one still in use? One of those words that the Dutch can be "proud" of I guess... you don't see many Dutch words used in English.
That's... odd. They probably have their reasons, and those reasons probably imply that the general population are morons with a lack of "leave people be".
Also, I just saw use of the word "apartheid" in the article... is that one still in use? One of those words that the Dutch can be "proud" of I guess... you don't see many Dutch words used in English.
Mostly it's used in context of South Africa.
That's... odd. They probably have their reasons, and those reasons probably imply that the general population are morons with a lack of "leave people be".
Also, I just saw use of the word "apartheid" in the article... is that one still in use? One of those words that the Dutch can be "proud" of I guess... you don't see many Dutch words used in English.
I had know idea it was dutch. I'll use it alot more often now.
It's pronounced
a ( like "a monkey")
part (using that same "a" as above, otherwise like the English "part")
heid (pronouced like "hi" (the greeting)-"d")
It'll probably sound a lot more Dutch that way.
You probably didn't know because you're using English pronounciation, but it's a very Dutch word.
It's pronounced
a ( like "a monkey")
part (using that same "a" as above, otherwise like the English "part")
heid (pronouced like "hi" (the greeting)-"d")
It'll probably sound a lot more Dutch that way.
we tend to leave out the H sound. so its more like uh-part-tide like that lol
A-par-theid
But it should be divided like this:
A-part-heid
But it should be divided like this:
A-part-heid
That's how I always say it. Cuz that's how I've heard it mostly. So maybe a lot of us don't pronounce it wrong. Then again, I may have just been lucky.
Another interesting note from the article: The person that doesn't have a problem with these segregated toilets happens to be named 'Iran'. Coincidence or insidious conspiracy? ;)
I wouldn't have an issue with it if there were gay only toilets for those that wanted a measure of security (how that's possible I dunno) so long as they could also use any of the other toilets, too. If that's what's happenin', no biggie. If they're only allowed to use these specially designated toilets, though, then I think that's wrong.
Regardless, it's not a word you should be proud of being adopted into other languages
Cop rolls up "Hey you in the bathroom, you gay?"
Guy in gay bathroom "... Yes?"
Cop: "Prove it!" drops his pants.
I mean, wtf. They gonna issue gay ID badges to open the doors?
I'm not sure I understand how you enforce that...
Cop rolls up "Hey you in the bathroom, you gay?"
Guy in gay bathroom "... Yes?"
Cop: "Prove it!" drops his pants.
I mean, wtf. They gonna issue gay ID badges to open the doors?
Most hilarious possiblity to come out of a thread in a while.I imagine it'll be "enforced" purely by social pressure.
So... the goal is to have people stand outside the gay restroom and provide 'social pressure' to all who enter? Singeling out the gays for scorn filled condemnation seems counter productive.
I believe the "desired" result is more along the lines of idiots not harassing gay kids because they're "checking them out" in the bathroom or idiocy like that, so people will feel safer and that, without the "threat" of some dude checking you out in the bathroom the more violence-prone misanthropes won't feel the need to bash in the brains of some unlucky kid because of perceived masculine failings.
But who knows.
What I meant, though, is that people who aren't gay won't use the "gay bathrooms" so they don't get labeled as gay, while the people that are gay will make the choice of whether it's more important to not feel threatened and harassed in the bathroom or to keep to the illusion of the closet and/or refuse to be singled out.
It just really does not make alot of sense, sexual orientation (unlike gender or ethnicity) is not something that can realistically be determined by sight alone in the majority of cases, so making rules about what sexual orientations can go where is patently retarded without some kind of verification methode. Relying on the stigma to help fight the stigma seems counterproductive.
I can't say whether the idea will work or not, but quite frankly it really is quite simple, as I see it. If this makes some miserable kids' lives a little bit easier, then it's good.
Whether, philosophically, I approve of separate bathrooms/showers/schools/whatever for gay kids is all well and good when I'm sitting back in the life I've carved out for myself, but when you have a case of someone being bullied now, then if something as simple as a separate bathroom for the guys/girls willing to accept being publicly labeled as gay will help stop or at least reduce the bullying, I'm not going to say it's a solely bad thing.
Might it not turn out well? Sure. Might it turn out well? Also sure.
Or to put it another way... the best doesn't have to be the enemy of the good.
... and just what, pray tell, makes you think I've misread anything?
Point of fact: I said one of us. Nowhere did I so much as imply that I thought you where more likely to have misread it than I. The article was poorly written.
We seem to be talking about diffrent things. You are defending school systems setting up systematic bathroom facilities for gay underaged students. I was talking about party/parade goers having seperate bathrooms for gay and transvestite participants that happen to be on school property.
The base assumption is that we are discusing the article this thread is about unless otherwise noted and if we are then talking about diffrent things, we seem to belive the article said things diffrent from what the other read in it.
We seem to be talking about diffrent things. You are defending school systems setting up systematic bathroom facilities for gay underaged students.
No I'm not.
Or at least, I'm not specifically defending that. I'm defending, to the degree that I am (which is to say, half-heartedly and without conviction), the idea of separate facilities for LGBT people as a safety measure. This is one example (whether its schools or just some festival, the full article (the OP link just goes to a stub, you have to follow another link to get to the full thing) isn't entirely clear...) of that idea.
Someone attacking someone in the bathroom because they think they are gay and are checking them out isn't going to be stoped unless gays are prevented from using 'straight' bathrooms. People who want to go specifically beat up gays in a bathroom know just the bathroom to go to.
Unless you have some fairly reliable way of telling the two apart easily then there is no way to seperate them reliably and so I do not understand the purpose.
I dunno, why did none of the people in the bathroom get freaked out when I walked in drag a few months back. Because perceptions. I was in the men's bathroom, so even though I looked (at first glance, anyway) like a woman, I was a man. So if you have a bathroom for "the gays" then if someone isn't in there, then they're straight. That people aren't forced to use it doesn't matter.
Not to mention that if there is a problem, then the gay person can choose the "safe" alternative.
People aren't strictly logical, TA.
1. Plan D&D campaigns.
2. attempt to drive.
3. read EE and TA's posts to each other during a debate.
It's all about perceptions.
I dunno, why did none of the people in the bathroom get freaked out when I walked in drag a few months back. Because perceptions. I was in the men's bathroom, so even though I looked (at first glance, anyway) like a woman, I was a man. So if you have a bathroom for "the gays" then if someone isn't in there, then they're straight. That people aren't forced to use it doesn't matter.
Not to mention that if there is a problem, then the gay person can choose the "safe" alternative.
People aren't strictly logical, TA.
I don;t know, it just seems like it adds a big heavy dose of fuel to the whole gay bathroom stigma.