Washroom, disabled
Hmm, I seem to be developing an obsession with the CBC washrooms.
Our stalls remain blissfully free of ads, and I’m still unable to locate the mythical Queen’s Own Loo. But now there are more washrooms I’m not supposed to visit.
A couple of days ago, new signs appeared on the doors of some of the handicapped washrooms in the Toronto CBC building:
This room is reserved for the use of staff and visitors with physical disabilities.
“Huh?” I thought to myself, “ONLY people with disabilities?” Not that I have strong feelings about the matter, but I’ve never heard of these washrooms being off-limits to the able bodied. And what prompted the signage? Were there complaints from people with disabilities who had to wait while the able-bodied used their johns? Is it poor form to use them at all? Or does our property manager just want to cut back on cleaning? I resolved to find out.
The disabled washroom on our floor is a single, unisex room with a separate entrance, located right between the regular men’s and women’s washrooms (the men’s has two stalls and a urinal; I can’t vouch for the women’s, though I’m betting it has fewer urinals.)
To my knowledge (and, as a CBC Fire Warden, I’m supposed to know) there are no employees with physical disabilities on our floor, and I’ve certainly never seen anyone waiting to use the special washroom. It’s generally only used in the following circumstances:
- When the regular ones are full (and since it’s located across from a boardroom used for meetings that last months at a sitting, this happens a fair bit.)
- When someone wants privacy. (I use it to change into my baseball gear. Once, I had an office and could change in comfort - and, less icky, on carpet - but after moving to a cubicle I found my colleagues just stared.)
- Since they ripped out our local “coffee station”, it’s the only place with a sink that you can use to fill the kettle. (Do you wanna make tea at the CBC?)
Even this minimal use has caused two rather amusing signage incidents in the past.
Once, a wiseass employee taped up a poll beside the toilet in there. The question: “Why have you chosen to use this disabled washroom?” The options went something like this:
- I’m disabled
- I like the extra space
- I make embarrasing sounds or smells
- I need somewhere to sleep/read/smoke dope
etc.
Another sign came courtesy of the poor slobs who had to work in the office across the hall from this washroom. Unlike the regular washrooms, the disabled ones have a single door instead of a double door - and apparently this makes them decidedly not soundproof.
The folks who had to work across from this washroom would be on the phone making business calls, and have to tune out the sorts of sounds that come from people who think they are eliminating in private. A paper sign was tacked up on the door requesting that users either use the main washrooms where possible, or be cognizant that the walls have ears.
That office has since been moved (they get cubicles too - are you sensing a trend? - which is no quieter) but handicapped washroom avoidance is now, it would seem, official policy.
Not that I have a problem with the change; I’ve never been clear on the etiquette of able-bodied people using them anyways.
Are these washrooms a dedicated resource for the disabled - like a parking spot - making their use by the able-bodied immoral or illegal? Or are they like wheelchair ramps - allowing accessibility to everyone?
Hell if I know. So I started poking around the internet.
One conversation took place on Everything2, under the title “Don’t use the handicapped stall“:
Unless, of course, you happen to be a handicapped person in which case you are one of a select few that should use it. Almost every time I go into the washroom at work the handicapped stall is occupied. Whenever I see somebody come out of it, he is an able-bodied, non-handicapped coworker. There’s something very wrong here.
The handicapped stall ought to be thought of the same way that the handicapped parking space is. Actually, I take that back. The handicapped stall is more rare than the handicapped parking space. If I see one handicapped space, I see at least two next to it. If I see a handicapped washroom stall, I see only one, and it’s tucked away in the corner of the washroom.
That view is rebutted later in the discussion:
Restroom stalls are not intended for the exclusive use by handicapped persons — one is supposed to immediately make them available to a handicapped person when possible, but otherwise, they are to be treated as any other toilet stall.
Why the difference? Because parking spaces and toilet stalls are fundamentally different facilities.
Toilet stalls are intended to provide privacy for attending to bodily functions such as elimination, changing sanitary napkins, etc. Sometimes people use stalls to change clothes. Some use them to quietly weep. In general, though, one can attend to business in a public restroom stall in less than two minutes.
Two very different points of view, but at least the discussion is civil. Not so, if you look to the debate in the blogosphere:
Woah, woah! HOLD ON DUDE. You mean only handicapped people can use handicapped toilets?
How come people have this notion that only the disabled can use facilities for the disabled? …. WTF is this? ….Sure, if I SEE that you are physically disabled, and you need to use the handicapped toilet, then yes, obviously I will let you use it and go use a normal toilet.
As far as I am concerned, you have a physical disability - and that is where you have a disadvantage. Your bladder is working fine isn’t it? So you wait, just like normal people do, when there is a queue for the toilet. The rest of us queue up to use a toilet - I don’t see why the disabled should be any different.
And the even less civil response:
BITCH, you should never ever used a handicap toilet in the first place if you’re an able person.
Get this, it’s for them. The space= it’s for the size of the wheelchair. The slope, it’s for the wheelchair too. You can walk down a slope, but they can’t slide down a flight of stairs, dumbass.
Working bladders? What makes you think they really have ones? What makes you think that it’s right for a handicap with incontinence to pee on herself/himself just because a dumbass like you was too lazy to wait at the other 6 cubicles.
You’re stupid, malicious and insensitive.
On the other hand, stupidity is a handicap. Perhaps that qualifies you for the handicap toilet.
Ouch.
Seeking sanity, I posed the question to Joe Clark, who - though seemingly able-bodied - knows more about accessibility than anyone I know (though he does tend to focus on accessibilty in media). Joe’s response to the sign:
“How do you know I’m not disabled?”
When I asked him about the propriety of admittedly able-bodied people using the disabled washrooms, here’s what he replied:
I do all the time. Tons more space.
Finally, I e-mailed SNC Lavalin Profac, the company that maintains our building, to ask for the official explanation. Today, they wrote back with the following:
We were receiving a lot of complaints from physically disabled people about inappropriate use of these facilities.
There goes my conspiracy theory about saving on Tilex. I showed the reply to Joe, and here’s his take:
The only *valid* complaint is “There’s only one washroom on the floor and somebody was in it when I needed it.” Then the complainant would have to prove they stuck around to see who was using it and knew for a fact that person wasn’t disabled.
I really wish there were a physically disabled colleague nearby that I could ask for an opinion. But there isn’t… which is what makes the sign seem so strange.
Anyone out there have any thoughts on the matter?
Posted by: Paul Gorbould | 03-23-2007 | 11:03 AM
Posted in: CBC | Apocalypse signs | Comments (24)
The street art on the sidewalk is similarly amusing. The four corners of Broadview and Queen E. are inlaid with steel equations, part of Eldon Garnet’s “
Loading …
The crosswalk outside CBC, at the corner of Front St. and John St., has gone digital.
