Someone there should make a talk condemning popular modern idea of “success”, a shorthand for “making money from everything”, and use these talks as an illustration.
> Shakespeare writes “Romeo and Juliet”
> then “Romeo and Juliet 2”
> then “Mercutio and Tybalt”
> signs a contract for mass-market wooden figurines, limited bronze series, and exclusive gold ones
> advertises “Write with Shakespeare”, a book where you fill in the blank lines and passages
Also,
> Why we need gender-neutral bathrooms
> 11 minutes of “Ple-e-ease understand others' needs!” and “Heh, I'm an average person like you, heh, wanna hear a joke?”
Pretty pathetic, actually. What should be done is a technical explanation that people use toilets as both private space for excretion and private space for other needs. If we consider modern individual stalls with doors, as opposed to free-for-all-enjoy-the-view solutions, they are already agnostic, and the former seems to be a solved problem. We can split the functionality. New buildings can have a joint toilet stall room (optionally with a row of urinals on the opposite wall behind the opaque barrier) and smaller individual washrooms with mirrors, etc. That way, we can deal with the load disproportion between women's and men's toilets. Old buildings with multiple toilets can designate some of them as gender-agnostic.
And, while changing rooms can feature individual stalls, the showers and baths can't. That's when the real talk about acceptance and gender starts.
I also sense a different problem here. While Europeans take bath together and just place practical street urinals where they should be to prevent drunk men from keeping the three hundred year old corner smelly for next three hundred years or failing to hide behind a finger-thin tree or a leave-less bush, in some other countries showing just a bit of skin accidentally can cause some crazy to shout “Police! Help! He eye-raped me and my underage daughter!”.
Now playing: https://www.scene.org/~gloom/gloom_and_flipside-telos.ogg