When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Portland city officials have indeed decided not to install urinals in any bathrooms in the Portland Building, which was under renovation as of September 2019. However, The Gateway Pundit’s article was misleading and illogical in characterizing that decision as a “ban” and also inaccurate in claiming that the urinal policy applied to all public buildings (or even more than one) in the city.
A spokesperson for the city’s Office of Management and Finance and the Portland Building reconstruction project confirmed to Snopes in an email that officials “chose not to install urinals when the restrooms were remodeled,” and provided a graphic that showed the expected layout of bathrooms in the building, including female, male and “all-user” (gender-neutral) bathrooms.
The absence of urinals in either male or all-user bathrooms, the spokesperson explained, meant that “in the future, we have the ability to move to all-user restrooms on additional floors.”
In his email to employees in February 2019, Portland’s Chief Administrative officer Tom Rinehart explained that all of the bathrooms had also been designed to be identical to one another, meaning that if officials later chose to convert some gender-specific bathrooms to gender-neutral status, that switch could more easily be made.
That email, and the plan in question, related only to the Portland Building, meaning The Gateway Pundit’s headline claim — that the city had “banned urinals from public buildings” — was false. Rather, the spokesperson told us:
“It is possible that, in future remodels of other city buildings, urinals may not be installed if restrooms are renovated. There are no plans to remove urinals as a separate project.”
The description of the Portland Building urinal policy as a “ban” on urinals — as claimed by both The Gateway Pundit and KGW8 — was illogical and grossly misleading. The city itself owns and manages the building and is responsible for overseeing its renovation.
Rather, the city has made a design choice in order to facilitate potential future changes to the gender status of bathrooms in the building.
Yeah except for the fact that the article mentions the term gender neutral several times. Now I don't know WTF gender neutral is in the context of the article.
But if gender neutral means that there are no genders or a bazillion genders, then I'd say this is some stupid *** Leftist policy. WTF, does removing urinals fix?
And if it means that male and female gender may use the same bathroom, then again, WTF does removing the urinals fix?
And BTW, there are (or were) female urinals. I have seen them personally when we remodeled the public bathrooms at the building on the corner of Lincoln Road and Washington Ave. They were replaced with toilets during the remodel.
Also, I was in a bar late night and a young woman strolled into the men's room while I was using the urinal. She used the one right next to me. Said the ladies room line was too long. She put her back to the urinal, bent over and dropped her underwear and urinated without making a mess of the floor or herself. True story.
So I'll ask again, WTF does removing urinals solve?
Yeah except for the fact that the article mentions the term gender neutral several times. Now I don't know WTF gender neutral is in the context of the article.
But if gender neutral means that there are no genders or a bazillion genders, then I'd say this is some stupid *** Leftist policy. WTF, does removing urinals fix?
And if it means that male and female gender may use the same bathroom, then again, WTF does removing the urinals fix?
And BTW, there are (or were) female urinals. I have seen them personally when we remodeled the public bathrooms at the building on the corner of Lincoln Road and Washington Ave. They were replaced with toilets during the remodel.
Also, I was in a bar late night and a young woman strolled into the men's room while I was using the urinal. She used the one right next to me. Said the ladies room line was too long. She put her back to the urinal, bent over and dropped her underwear and urinated without making a mess of the floor or herself. True story.
So I'll ask again, WTF does removing urinals solve?
It helps to read the articles and policies you are attacking. But I'm assuming if you can't be bothered to read................
This is a "nothing burger." Holy ****, no urinals and just stalls. THE ******* WORLD IS ENDING EVERYONE!
All of this could be solved by installing a bunch of flexible plastic tubes protruding from the wall at various intervals, which are connected to a central vacuum system. Essentially, a scaled-up version of the technology which has been used for decades to manage waste on space ships and space stations.
Here at work, we already have a central vacuum source and distribution lines in place. It's left over from the era of 2" reel-to-reel videotape machines, which required both vacuum and compressed air to operate. A separation tank would need to be installed at the lowest point in the system, however that's a relatively trivial engineering matter.
The larger issue, in my opinion, is that a nursing / lactation room exists adjacent to the women's restroom at the north-west corner of the second floor of the building, however no equivalent facility has been provided in any of the mens' restrooms. This bias is demeaning and discriminatory.
Not gonna lie, I'm a little bit aroused right now. A pixie cut would move her firmly into "yes" territory.
Anyway, moving on from things that Braineack and I couldn't disagree about more...
Oh, look! Something new to be offended by!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen and nonbinary persons, it's now officially OK to be offended by sauce.
Literally, the stuff that your pour onto cooked chicken to give it flavor.
Because, if a certain style of sauce is developed and refined by an unknown number of non-white restaurant owners copying one another over a period of several decades in Chicago, and then, after said non-white cooks have made no attempt whatsoever to market this style of sauce commercially after said decades, a white chef decides "Hey, this stuff tastes really amazing. It's a shame that it's not available in stores. I'll bet that a lot of people would really like to be able to cook with it at home." and subsequently creates a sauce which is similar to the aforementioned sauce, then that's something to be outraged about.
Who Owns Mild Sauce? White Chef Bottles Chicago’s Great Black Invention
Some Black Chicagoans don't want a white-owned company to profit off the culinary staple pioneered by chicken shop owners.
I know that "Chicago-style" is a cliché, so to be clear:
Deep-dish "pizza" is not pizza, it's a casserole. There actually is good pizza in Chicago, but you have to look for it.
Ketchup does not belong on hot dogs in much the same way that semen does not belong on the door handle to the office. Nobody knows why, but someone always winds up putting it there.
We did not invent cement shoes, we merely improved upon prior art.
Our murder rate is slightly lower than that of Cleveland, Ohio.
The Bean is overrated.
That having been said, this sauce is really good. Not quite Nashville Hot Chicken good, but it's in that vicinity.
02-21-2020, 08:54 AM
1
