[News] A woman is a woman.

jcdenton08 said:

I feel like you’ve not understood my point or read my post correctly.

There isn’t enough space for an adequate number of cubicles to accommodate 1,000 people in an audience. Women will tell you that they have to spend the vast majority of a 20 minute interval queuing to use the toilet. Now imagine theatres rip out 3 urinals, and replace them with 1 cubicle which takes the same amount of space.

Then you have a mixed queue of men and women waiting to use 1/3rd of the facilities available before. Intervals would need to be expected to 30+ minutes.

Or are you suggesting women will be happy to squat over a men’s urinal?

Click to expand...

completely understood, you're getting tied up around idea there must be gendered toilets, with mixed as an add on. make all toilets ungendered and signs to indicate the available apparatus.

GT49er said:

Women don't like sharing the loos with men, even if it's only cubicles and no urinals; that's half the population. Many men aren't too happy about having a dump in a cubicle next to a woman (I agree some don't mind, but some do). Men are messier in cubicles, standing up - peeing on the rim, and sometimes missing that.
So, well over half the population are used to same sex facilities, like it that way and would be very averse to change. But never mind that - there's a tiny, tiny minority that want it all to change to the detriment of others so they can have it their way. Bollocks to that (literally and metaphorically)!

Click to expand...

As a woman, this is bollocks. Lots of us don’t care, it’s a case of those shouting the loudest getting the press.

The fact is plenty of places are gender neutral already, round here cafes, restaurants etc have lots of them. Nobody gave a toss when it just happened without a fuss, it’s just now that people are talking about it some folk have some abstract objection to it. It’s a load of f***ing nonsense.

Littlemo said:

As a woman, this is bollocks. Lots of us don’t care, it’s a case of those shouting the loudest getting the press.

Click to expand...

Congratulations. You're the first one I've met.

Littlemo said:

The fact is plenty of places are gender neutral already, round here cafes, restaurants etc have lots of them. Nobody gave a toss when it just happened without a fuss, it’s just now that people are talking about it some folk have some abstract objection to it. It’s a load of f***ing nonsense.

Click to expand...

Small cafe/ shop/ bar / petrol station may have just one toilet (as most of us do at home) which serves just one person at a time - they are uni-sex, obviously. Different when there are rows of cubicles, washbasins, etc.

GT49er said:

Many men aren't too happy about having a dump in a cubicle next to a woman

Click to expand...

I'm not happy having a dump in a cubicle next to another man, maybe just me though

pb21 said:

I'm not happy having a dump in a cubicle next to another man, maybe just me though

Click to expand...

It's the fart sounds that send shock waves through me, like a bomb that's been dropped, and every instinct in your body tells you to get out the cubicle before the blowback of the smell hits you from all sides.

GT49er said:

Congratulations. You're the first one I've met.

Small cafe/ shop/ bar / petrol station may have just one toilet (as most of us do at home) which serves just one person at a time - they are uni-sex, obviously. Different when there are rows of cubicles, washbasins, etc.

Click to expand...

It’s not different though, is it? What’s really the harm in sharing those things? None, we already do.

No doubt some will see it differently, but it's just my POV and the correct decision.

​

Leekbrookgull said:

No doubt some will see it differently, but it's just my POV and the correct decision.

Click to expand...

Netball as well

I imagine the associations are happy to do this now with the speed it's happening.

It's stupid it was a thing in the first place

GT49er said:

Congratulations. You're the first one I've met.

Small cafe/ shop/ bar / petrol station may have just one toilet (as most of us do at home) which serves just one person at a time - they are uni-sex, obviously. Different when there are rows of cubicles, washbasins, etc.

Click to expand...

This is possibly an age thing.

There are more than 39 thousand students at the uni where I work.
unisex toilets are all over the place.
Nobody complains.

Kinky Gerbil said:

Netball as well

I imagine the associations are happy to do this now with the speed it's happening.

It's stupid it was a thing in the first place

Click to expand...

Yes, all the hand wringing about measuring the woman's testosterone levels, hand size, femur length etc., then having a decision made on a case by case basis by a committee of blowhards, reaching their decision based on how they feel on the days is (to missquote Peter Cook) not a good way to run a nightclub.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

This is possibly an age thing.

There are more than 39 thousand students at the uni where I work.
unisex toilets are all over the place.
Nobody complains.

Click to expand...

I think the long term answer is a third option, not sure how that looks going forward, if those in charge hadn't wasted time on nasty arguments and worked together we would have an answer now on how to work it to suit everyone.

Spot on about the age thing.

Leekbrookgull said:

No doubt some will see it differently, but it's just my POV and the correct decision.

Click to expand...

I doubt there are any people on NSC who disagree with you.
The alternative is to find some way to measure whether the individual may have an unfair advantage based on the physical advantages conferred by having spent a part of their life with their bones and muscles suffused with anabolic testosterone.

This does not detract from the despair that will be felt by TG women affected by the new approach.
Unfortunately one assumes their options are limited to playing with biological males (unfeasible)
or TG sport - which does not yet exist - probably because the numbers are so low. Let's have a look.....

There are around 12,000 women's and girls teams registered in the UK according to Google AI.
If we assume that each has 20 members, there are around a quarter of a million women playing competitive football.
Of these, according to info presented on R5 today, there are 28 TG women playing in the women's game.
Unfortunately it seems that there are too few of them to be able to create a new sport of TG women's football.
I feel quite sad about that, but there it is.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

This does not detract from the despair that will be felt by TG women affected by the new approach.
Unfortunately one assumes their options are limited to playing with biological males (unfeasible)

Click to expand...

Why do you say this is unfeasible?

Taking football as an example, girls can already play boys football at grassroots all the way up to 18 - we already have a generation of children who are comfortable playing against the opposite sex in mixed-sex teams, so why would it be a problem playing against/with the same sex but gender non-conforming people going forward?

Kinky Gerbil said:

I think the long term answer is a third option, not sure how that looks going forward, if those in charge hadn't wasted time on nasty arguments and worked together we would have an answer now on how to work it to suit everyone.

Spot on about the age thing.

Click to expand...

I used to like Rowling but have been appalled by her cigar-smoking triumphalism,
yet if her ilk had not caused a fuss the changes we are now seeing would probably not have happened. That's ironic.

I have not read enough about her quotes and that to know whether she has gone full Kilroy, or whether she has been taken out of context.
Now the dust is settling, I can imagine how antsy one might have got when faced with decision makers
who insist that (extreme case) a pre-op TG woman can strut about in the women's changing room.
I appreciate most of this is not what most people have been talking about but....

Here is an example of similar weapons-grade fuckwittery, from my workplace.
A student is set a written exercise, to write up a lab experiment (practical).
They have one chance to do the one practical. There can be no repeats due to timetabling practicalities.
They pass the write up.
They then fail the course (unit) overall.
This means they have to redo the course unit, with the mark capped at the pass mark (40%).
This means writing up the same practical again. The practical report that had already got a pass mark for.
But if they re-use any of their previous text they will be failed for plagiarism.

This is what we were told to implement by an administrator 3 years ago at a meeting of programme leads.
I said 'I am not f***ing doing it. I am going to ignore the Turnitin (plagiarism) report. It was their work so how can it be plagiarism?'.
The administrator came out in cold sweat.

A few months later a new rubric was announced.
Only failed elements need to be re-sat if a course overall is failed.
So the practical need be rewritten only if it had been failed.
But the same plagiarism rules would apply!

A few months later, a new new rubric.
If a failed element could not be redone without 'plagiarising' one's self,
then an alternative assessment would need to be set.
So if a practical report was failed and the course failed overall, they student would have to write an essay for alternative assessment.
Given the practical report assesses their understanding of a practical, then using an essay as alternative assessment is nonsense, is it not?

Some staff ignored this. I did. I just said ' f*** it, you failed overall with 32% (pass mark 40).
You got 28% for the practical report. Juts write the fucker up again.
I should reiterate that if a student fails a course overall, when they redo failed elements the final mark is capped at the pass mark.

I had a student who got 39% overall. They had passed the exam (41%) but failed the in course essay (38%).
I was asked to set a brand new in course essay. This had to be first and second marked by blind double marking.
Our rules are that if the first and second mark are not the same the markers must meet to discuss an agreed mark.
We can't take an average because we use step marking (42, 45, 48, 52, 55, 58, 62, 65 68 and so on).
If the two markers award 42 and 45 the average is not on the step.
So this student got 48% for their new coursework essay.
This brought the average up to around 44%.
The final mark was capped so they got 40%.
All that for 1%. Just one course unit of four, so 0.25% of the final year marks.

We do have a system where you can get a condoned fail (no need to resit). But only for one course per academic year.
This student already had a condoned fail for another course. So they had to go through all this shit, making work for me, for 1%.
I had to select an essay title, ensuring it did not overlap with any exam questions, get it approved by external examiners,
then manage the marking and second marking, and curate the whole process. Probably a couple of hour's work overall.

Finally, I don't agree with blind parallel marking because when I set question, I am the expert and know what a good answer looks like.
My second marker doesn't have the same expertise.
With compulsory blind parallel marking I would I send my assessment to the second marker,
so we avoided having to meet to discuss final marks. I broke the rules! Fancy that.

The higher committees, having realized what a load of old bollocks blind double marking is, now no longer require us to apply it.

All of the sensible changes have come about without any announcements.
All of the stupid ones were announced with a fanfare,
as they met the inclusivity agenda, mitigating against unconscious biases etc.

Now, if this is how a top 5 UK uni manages assessments, you can imagine how SHIT sporting governing bodies are, were,
and would be if charged with deciding how hairy a leg must be to result in exclusion from womens' sport.

The new ruling may be harsh, and it may not be the best of all possible things in an ideal world,
but this is not an ideal world, and it meets as many of the needs as is humanly possible.

Now let's roll out more gender-neutral facilities,
and stop being horrible to people who may be different.

Curious Orange said:

Why do you say this is unfeasible?

Taking football as an example, girls can already play boys football at grassroots all the way up to 18 - we already have a generation of children who are comfortable playing against the opposite sex in mixed-sex teams, so why would it be a problem playing against/with the same sex but gender non-conforming people going forward?

Click to expand...

Apologies. I had not realized there is a nationwide network of gender neutral football. If so - great!

I had been thinking more about people wanting to move up to more 'elite' football organized previously by gender (and now by sex).
I mean women's leagues.

I was assuming that TG women who aspired to playing what I assume to be county level league football would find it difficult to find organized competitive gender neutral football.
And therefore have nowhere to go.

I will google this.....

Edit yes there is lots of mixed gender football in the UK.
But is is not allowed by the FA after the age of 16.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

I used to like Rowling but have been appalled by her cigar-smoking triumphalism,
yet if her ilk had not caused a fuss the changes we are now seeing would probably not have happened. That's ironic.

I have not read enough about her quotes and that to know whether she has gone full Kilroy, or whether she has been taken out of context.
Now the dust is settling, I can imagine how antsy one might have got when faced with decision makers
who insist that (extreme case) a pre-op TG woman can strut about in the women's changing room.
I appreciate most of this is not what most people have been talking about but....

Here is an example of similar weapons-grade fuckwittery, from my workplace.
A student is set a written exercise, to write up a lab experiment (practical).
They have one chance to do the one practical. There can be no repeats due to timetabling practicalities.
They pass the write up.
They then fail the course (unit) overall.
This means they have to redo the course unit, with the mark capped at the pass mark (40%).
This means writing up the same practical again. The practical report that had already got a pass mark for.
But if they re-use any of their previous text they will be failed for plagiarism.

This is what we were told to implement by an administrator 3 years ago at a meeting of programme leads.
I said 'I am not f***ing doing it. I am going to ignore the Turnitin (plagiarism) report. It was their work so how can it be plagiarism?'.
The administrator came out in cold sweat.

A few months later a new rubric was announced.
Only failed elements need to be re-sat if a course overall is failed.
So the practical need be rewritten only if it had been failed.
But the same plagiarism rules would apply!

A few months later, a new new rubric.
If a failed element could not be redone without 'plagiarising' one's self,
then an alternative assessment would need to be set.
So if a practical report was failed and the course failed overall, they student would have to write an essay for alternative assessment.
Given the practical report assesses their understanding of a practical, then using an essay as alternative assessment is nonsense, is it not?

Some staff ignored this. I did. I just said ' f*** it, you failed overall with 32% (pass mark 40).
You got 28% for the practical report. Juts write the fucker up again.
I should reiterate that if a student fails a course overall, when they redo failed elements the final mark is capped at the pass mark.

I had a student who got 39% overall. They had passed the exam (41%) but failed the in course essay (38%).
I was asked to set a brand new in course essay. This had to be first and second marked by blind double marking.
Our rules are that if the first and second mark are not the same the markers must meet to discuss an agreed mark.
We can't take an average because we use step marking (42, 45, 48, 52, 55, 58, 62, 65 68 and so on).
If the two markers award 42 and 45 the average is not on the step.
So this student got 48% for their new coursework essay.
This brought the average up to around 44%.
The final mark was capped so they got 40%.
All that for 1%. Just one course unit of four, so 0.25% of the final year marks.

We do have a system where you can get a condoned fail (no need to resit). But only for one course per academic year.
This student already had a condoned fail for another course. So they had to go through all this shit, making work for me, for 1%.
I had to select an essay title, ensuring it did not overlap with any exam questions, get it approved by external examiners,
then manage the marking and second marking, and curate the whole process. Probably a couple of hour's work overall.

Finally, I don't agree with blind parallel marking because when I set question, I am the expert and know what a good answer looks like.
My second marker doesn't have the same expertise.
With compulsory blind parallel marking I would I send my assessment to the second marker,
so we avoided having to meet to discuss final marks. I broke the rules! Fancy that.

The higher committees, having realized what a load of old bollocks blind double marking is, now no longer require us to apply it.

All of the sensible changes have come about without any announcements.
All of the stupid ones were announced with a fanfare,
as they met the inclusivity agenda, mitigating against unconscious biases etc.

Now, if this is how a top 5 UK uni manages assessments, you can imagine how SHIT sporting governing bodies are, were,
and would be if charged with deciding how hairy a leg must be to result in exclusion from womens' sport.

The new ruling may be harsh, and it may not be the best of all possible things in an ideal world,
but this is not an ideal world, and it meets as many of the needs as is humanly possible.

Now let's roll out more gender-neutral facilities,
and stop being horrible to people who may be different.

Click to expand...

40% is a pass?

Education’s gone.

Goldstone1976 said:

40% is a pass?

Education’s gone.

Click to expand...

Yeah, right.

I did external examining at Cambridge a few years ago (intercalating medics) and they operate a pass mark based initially on % (nominally 40) that is scaled to ensure approximately X% pass, based on historical data.

Where we are we set a pass mark and get on with it.

For level 7 the pass mark is 50%.

At level 6, if you get a Desmond or Douglas your options are limited.
Masseur.
Sliced potato cooking operative.
Researcher for the Reform party.
That sort of thing.

jcdenton08 said:

My area, theatre, is particularly troublesome for finding a solution. West End/traditional proscenium theatres are Victorian or Edwardian listed buildings with no room whatsoever for expansion. The queue for the ladies (and gents) is terrible as it is, and most theatres only have two cubicles and three/four urinals on each level. Some fewer. Women’s toilets usually consist of three cubicles. Taking out three tiny urinals crammed together at say, the Novello, would fit maybe one cubicle to service 400 people in the stalls. It’s horrendous enough at it is.

Now, average West End theatres house between 600-2400 people, with the smaller the house the fewer the facilities and space. They are legally required to have one disabled access toilet per house. Due to a lack of space, this is often a converted a converted cupboard. At the Wyndham’s for example, this involves leaving the venue and re-entering through a side door into a small box at the very back of the stalls.

It would be completely impossible to create mixed use toilets in 95% of West End performance venues and regional traditional venues, due to their design and lack of space. It isn’t a case of changing the signs on the doors, because the only way there is only throughput is thanks to men being much quicker using a set of urinals than women in a cubicle. The room will still be the same size, and cubicles are much larger.

Larger venues, such as The National Theatre and Barbican, with an an awful lot more square footage, have opted for open plan shared sex toilets, because they can afford to have rows of cubicles in terms of both space and government funding. These are also “opt out” and anybody not comfortable using shared facilities can ask to use a disabled toilet for privacy.

Click to expand...

We went to see Cabaret at the KitKat Club in London, where they have gender neutral toilets. Or, they removed the old signs and put up new ones stating gender neutral.

Women who went into the previously mens toilets had to queue for the cubicals next to men pissing into the urinals. Lots of people were complaining about it, mostly women but some men too. I certainly didn't see this as the future, I hope not.

New theaters (and sporting venues) should be fine incorporating a gender neutral option but it's just not possible for the older ones.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

Edit yes there is lots of mixed gender football in the UK.
But is is not allowed by the FA after the age of 16.

Click to expand...

Up to under-18, segregation happens after that.

*Removes FA Qualified coaches hat*