- Ben Turpin
- June 14, 2013 - 20:40
I agree, co-ed hospital rooms are not “a violation of human rights at its most basic.” This is hyperbole, but I can appreciate the sentiment of the quote. These uncozy quarters may be in violation of cultural mores (for the purpose of maximizing resources), the expectations of modest citizens, and just plain awkward in many cases. In fact, there are no co-ed rooms, just the policy to allow management to judge when a co-op opportunity can be enacted, as necessary, with consent. If the occupants of the room were required to sleep in the same bed, with no heat, like in the lumber camps of the 1930s, then maybe there would be a case for rights violation. I see no other quote from Hayes about sexual assault and/or rape, yet the letter begins and ends with it. How do you justify jumping from privacy to rape? "I am not ignorant enough to believe that I will be raped by every person I sit next to because of their reproductive systems." Yet you seem to be ignorant enough to believe than others are that ignorant, solely because they are contrary to this ad hoc co-ed policy. Just come out of the water-closet and overtly state your case for co-ed, genderless public restrooms already. Why even bring Hayes into your argument, let alone hypothetically ravishing us with your own feelings and conclusions?
- June 14, 2013 - 20:09
I have to say that none of this made any sense to me at all. How are you a director of anything if you cannot write a 2 minute post and stay on topic? I weep for our future!
- Florence Nightingale
- June 14, 2013 - 09:42
Huh???? How did we get from a shortage of hospital beds to lesbian gay rights? Now that St. Clare's has finally finished its new ER entrance, I understand their next project is to double room occupancy with the use of bunk beds.
- Colin Burke
- June 14, 2013 - 09:27
"The number of men who are sexually assaulted is astounding." That sounds like either a tribute to the aggressivenss and physical prowess of the human female or an incredible slander on all those gays whom I had always believed to be above reproach, or else a lot of highly experimental straight men are wrongly presuming consent: did the writer actually read what he wrote?