From: Annie (annie@geekbabe.com)
Date: Sun May 25 2003 - 13:26:31 CDT
In this mailing:
Org List
Moving forward with the issues
More restroom comments
Restroom, continued
Restroom response
Administrivia
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Org List:
This is the DLV 2004 Organizational Mailing List (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Replies to this message will be forwarded to the DLVORG list and not the
DLV-Announce or DLV-Discuss list.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moving forward with the issues:
This is the third mailing in so many days consisting almost entirely of
restroom comments. This mailing has three items of note, two of them
being comments and observations from two of our multi-year people who
were not with us this year, and another being an excellent detailed
response to one of the recent mailings.
The issue of restrooms (along with the related issue of dress and
behavior) is very important and does deserve careful attention and
consideration.
However, we need to move forward.
We need to shift the focus of the ORG group to welcoming the new
members of our ORG group and to the groundwork for what will become
DLV 2004.
We need to address the restroom and related issues, but we cannot afford
to let them drown out the final summarizing of DLV 2003 and the initial
planning of DLV 2004.
I would like to call for the formation of an ad-hoc subgroup, kind of a
subcommittee of this group, to continue with the analysis of the overall
issue of dress/restroom/behavior and make recommendations to the ORG
group as a whole as to what actions to take.
Aiko and I have volunteered to co-chair this committee, and we will be
seeking an appropriate number of volunteers from this group to serve on
the committee as well. It will be ad-hoc, have one purpose only, and
will be responsible to the ORG group as a whole.
I'm not hearing any calling for any significant changes to DLV due to
these issues, so the planning of DLV 2004 can go on normally as the
ad-hoc committee proceeds with their mission.
I hope everybody realizes that the purpose of shifting this to a sub-
committee is to clear the table here, and not to limit any viewpoints or
to restrict anybody's access or input to the decision-making process.
Input from all will be welcome, and everybody receiving this mailing is
welcome to volunteer for this subcommittee with the understanding that
it not distract from your normal involvement in the planning of DLV.
If you would like to volunteer to be on the ad-hoc subcommittee which
continues with the restroom/dress/behavior issues, please send in a
brief note (just reply to this mailing) and say so.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
More restroom comments:
Hollye Gabrielle of Galiano (Margeth) writes:
>Well, I have been following a bit about this thread and I can say a
>couple of things. One, some people view, not the intended gender of a
>person for this purpose, but the genitalia to be the important concern
>to them, regardless of whether the person is transgendered or not. At
>work, I did the responsible thing prior to surgery and used a coed
>restroom because of the concerns of at least one of the female
>coworkers. This is paramount to the problems encountered.
>Regardless of this, the key to this all is simply that learning to act
>like a lady (if in fact one does not give it away by looks) and
>learning to go to the ladies room by one's self and taking the results
>that they get as their own cross to bare. Hint: There are certain
>things women do that are unknown to men which set them aside and act as
>a identity trigger, albeit mostly subconscious to them.
>In other words, learn to fit in but don't practise in the restroom.
I like that quote. I'm gonna steal it. :)
>Try going out to dinner or conversing with totally strange men or women
>and see if they ever suspect you. When you get to the point where you
>are not given a thought, be it men or women, then you may get away with
>hovering in the ladies room or even speaking. Trying it in the restroom
>before getting to this level is hazardous!!
>Until such time, I suggest watching the activity around the restroom
>and choose a time where there are few to no females occupying it, no
>security hovering about, and breath deeply, walk casually into it, do
>your business and get out. Remember too... Wash your hands before
>leaving (quickly) and smile a kind casual smile!!! Oh and take a
>fleeting peek at your makeup for major problems; raccoon eyes etc. Fix
>them quick if needed and git cause the odds are yer gonna slip if yas
>hang around!
>Well that is enough of my soapbox and tips. By the way I now use the
>ladies room at work! And girls, one other thing about restrooms... When
>tinkling, don't break your stream! Keep it constant till done. This is a
>dead giveaway!!
>Take care all.
>(P.S. Alcohol tends to make us uninhibited and talkative. Beware this
>sneaky foe!)
Oh yes! A lot of unexpected things can happen when alcohol is in the
mix.
For those who don't know Margeth, she is one of the original DLV people,
but has been unable to attend the last two years. We thank Margeth for
sending in her thoughts and hope to see her in 2004.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restroom, continued:
Annie "the other Annie" writes:
>I have been reading the comments regarding the restroom incident with an
>inside interest.
>First of all, let me say I missed going to DLV this year, part of the
>reason was schedule conflicts but a larger part was last years restroom
>incident at Boardwalk.
>I enjoy my vacation at DLV , especially the part of allowing my inner
>self to interact with all the wonderful sisters I have met at previous
>DLV's.
>However, considering the time and cost (you know how I love to gamble)
>of attending DLV; I must now consider the viability of attending DLV.
>If I return, (you know I will )? Do I eliminate mainstream functions
>thereby negating all restroom issues or attend and risk the chance of
>potential embarrassment?
>Will be following this discussion with interest. Sorry this is so long.
It's not too long at all. :) It's the shortest item in this mailing.
Although Annie and I have discussed last year's Boardwalk restroom
incident off line, I was unaware that it was a prime factor in her final
decision not to attend this year.
To Annie I would note that you were indeed missed this year and your
absence was quite conspicuous.
I'm glad you let your thoughts and feelings be known, and I would like
you to consider volunteering to serve on the ad-hoc committee we will
shortly be forming to deal with these issues. I think it would be most
beneficial to have the direct input from somebody who "served in battle"
so to speak.
It saddens me to think that somebody would not return to DLV, or even
forego mainstream activities because of a past incident, but as we are
learning, being involved in one of these can be a real hard kick to
take.
I think one very important principle can be learned from this and from
the TI incident this year, and that is that restroom incidents spoil
vacations, and we need to do what we can to prevent them.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restroom response:
Michelle (NZ) writes:
>Disturbing items but not surprising given the number of girls, the
>variety of activities and the mainstream nature of much of what we did.
>I've previous made comment in the discussion list ...
{Moderator's note: Michelle's original comments in the discussion list
appear at http://www.geekbabe.com/dlv/dlv2003/dlvdisc/1330.html This
link should remain static for at least the next week or so.}
>It seems that while I thought my comments may have started some heated
>discussion it appears that there has been mainly agreement, in various
>forms. I think we (at least the ORG group and participants in the
>discussion list) are of a similar mind.
>Perhaps some aspects we don't
>all agree on but nevertheless we seem to appreciate the importance of
>discretion and quietness while performing a biological waste removal
>function! :-)
Actually I think you hit on one very important point here, and that is
the ladies room should be used for necessary waste removal and for
nothing else.
. . . . .
>The TERRIBLE Treasure Island Incident
>=====================================
>As unfortunate as this incident was and I do feel VERY sorry for
>whoever it was, I have some comments. If in doubt DON'T GO IN! If you
>are faced with a situation of being refused access to the Ladies and
>the Mens room is the only option I really would strongly suggest you
>leave and go somewhere else, even if its a restroom at the other end of
>the casino / hotel. Nothing good will come of it.
>Just to point out though most people are fairly drunk as Casinos by
>midnight or thereabouts. Although I don't recall a time being mentioned
>its was indicated as having occurred after the GoodTimes event so it
>was probably lateish! The comments made by men in the men's room sound
>like those of drunk inconsiderate macho male types. A good reason to
>avoid men's restroom at any time in any mode....!!!
<digression>
Back just prior to DLV 1999 I asked my attorney to check on the various
restroom legalities in the Las Vegas jurisdictions. His first remark
to me was to the effect of "I would think it would be quite a scene
to use the mens room ..."
</digression>
Another very good point is that alcohol and testosterone is not a very
stable mixture, especially within a confined area such as a mens room.
Such situations should most certainly be avoided.
>Having got to a stall waiting as long as possible is a GOOD move in my
>opinion. Where I've been in doubt about being a ladies rest room an
>extra couple of minutes, sitting on potty lets the previous attendees
>leave and a new batch enter. In general I don't believe a woman will
>stay around to "check" if it really was a guy unless she is intent on
>causing a real problem. Most will finish their business and leave. I
>guess in this situation the same applies for a mens room situation.
>>This is a very unfortunate and tragic incident. This totally ruined what
>>could otherwise be a memorable vacation for one of our sisters. :(
>Any incident that intrudes on the individuals desired self esteem etc
>is going to be a downer. The wrong things said by unconcerned or mean
>passers by can be just as bad. Situations in confined, uncontrolled,
>inescapable situations such as restrooms, buses, lifts etc are of
>course much worse.
>>I see two gross errors that precipitated, or escalated this incident.
>>1. Going to the ladies room in a group. Very poor judgement. Enough said
>OK Groups are maybe a no-no but I think (strongly suspect) that the
>group was noisy and obvious and it was this that would have created the
>problem.
>We had groups of girls in restrooms at various places most notably San
>Remo and Bally's on show nights. Did we have incidents there.
No, but I intentionally included admonitions to not use the ladies rooms
in groups at Bally's in the LFM and the schedule. I didn't see any of
it, but apparently you did.
>I remember taking one girl to the restroom at Bally's after the Limo
>tour and then waited for her in the annex area. I watched as both our
>ppl and real women went in and out. One girl spent some time doing her
>makeup at the basin/mirror and others were even quietly talking to each
>other going in and out. I didn't see nor hear of any issues that came
>from this and I'm sure it was ongoing throughout that evening at
>Bally's.
>>2. When the guard asked for ID, that should have been the clue that she
>>and the group were Persona Non Grata and she (all of them) should have
>>left the property immediately. Do not pass go, do not collect $200!
>I agree. As above.
>>Were these ladies dressed appropriately and were they behaving
>>appropriately for this venue? Were they under the influence and not
>All good questions. Lets hunt them down and conduct an inquisition....
>JUST JOKING! Really!!!!
>>Was Treasure Island the best choice of an after-Annual-Mixer (I assume)
>>stomping ground? Yes, yes, I know that TI is trying to become more Old
>>Vegas and less Disneyland, but TI is still pre-op in that transition.
>Can't see that it would be any better or worse than Mirage, Bellagio,
>Ceasars etc, etc. I've been in and out of TI over the years in girl mode
>and have never had any issue... at least one that I can remember.
>>Ladies (gentlemen) we need to learn from this one, and we need to
>>encourage our people to use good judgement and to dress and act
[bobbitt]
>Let me put up my hand and make a suggestion.... But you have to wait
>until end for that!!! :-)
>And just a final note... Who ever experienced this has my deepest
>sympathy. It's the type of thing we all dread and it should be on all
>of us to ensure we do as much as possible to mitigate against these
>thing in the future.
. . . . .
>The GREAT GOLFING GENDER incident
>=================================
>>+4. Not really a big issue but at the golf course they asked not to use
>>+the ladies room in the clubhouse.
>Mindy has subsequently replied to this but I would like to make some
>comments here. As the lead group of golfers (Julie, Cat, ???? And I) we
>were the first get stopped and asked (not told as I recall) not to use
>the ladies at the club house. When Lee was telling us he gave no reason
>and I remember him looking straight at me as though I had been the one
>that had caused a problem.
>When passing from the 9th to 10th I did stop there and pee. Without
>going into details I can assure you that I CAN"T stand and pee in girl
>mode in more than GG can. I was the only one in there, it was empty
>before during and when I left.
>After we had finished Mindy related the reason for the request and I
>guess I could understand why the request was made but I continue to
>have doubts as to the veracity Lee's comments regarding standing /
>peeing in the ladies restroom.
>Personally I would like to know whether there was in foundation to
>there complaint therefore for the golfers : Can anyone confirm that
>they or another did in fact stand and pee in the ladies? Perhaps you
>could let Mindy or Annie know off line?!
I'm hearing two things here ... one that the ladies room was essentially
not used except for DLV people, and another that there was a complaint
about somebody standing to urinate. My question is then: who complained?
>>... but I did have trouble with the desk clerk
>>+at the San Remo when I checked out. He would not take my credit card in
>>+my female name because it did not match my male D/L. He finally took my
[deletia]
>I had almost the contradiction of this when I checked out of my
>timeshare. I had booked, checked in and left a CC under my male name. I
>was there for two weeks. Anyway on the final day I decided to stayed
>enfemme and drive at least part of the way LA (or EL-LAY as some would
>have us believed it's spelt). So having packed my 89 tonnes of luggage
>in the car I headed off to settle the account.
>As a timeshare place they use an office rather than front desk
>arrangement so I walked in and the middle age lady was talking on the
>phone. She finished her call and asked how she could help. I said I was
>checking out 917. She pulled the record while asking me if I'd had a
>good time...yada, yada, yada... Anyway it came to time to settle and she
>asked: "Thank you Mrs W********** (my real surname) do you want to leave
>the charges on J***'s credit card?". Well that was easily answered and I
>was out of there feeling quite bemused by the whole thing.
>>If this had happened to me, I would have reported it to the GM of the
>>property. A rude person on the desk is not what any hotel wants!
>Build a Bridge. Move On. Blow the bridge up and don't go back!!!
>Perhaps that's not politically correct but is it worth the hassle of
>complaining?
>From having worked in hotels back in another life I can assure you that
management does want to know if you are not satisfied when you leave.
Hotels depend on repeat business, not only for the immediate property,
but for others of the same ownership/chain/franchise. A legitimate
complaint will always get a sincere apology, and an adjustment to the
bill if appropriate. They do want you to be happy during your stay, and
when you leave.
. . . . .
>The Bellagio Blunder!
>====================
>>>I was completely quiet while in the bathroom. I don't know if the guard
[cut-paste]
>>It may be the case that you were the victim of somebody else's action.
[cut-paste]
>>For whatever reason, the group ended up on the radar screen.
>This may may have been an unfortunate side effect of an unrelated event
>(or activity or incident, or time space distortion - not sure what
>Annie's classification for this is! :-) ) that occurred shortly after
>Mary Beth, Gina and I arrived at the bar. We arrived about 1:50am,
>shortly before Charles was about to take over. Gina and I got the only
>two seats left at the bar right beside a fairly drunk pokie player.
>I noticed he had just won something and had $27 on credit. I turned
>away and a couple minutes later an argument started right behind me. It
>appeared that this idiot had left the machine, with credit still there
>to go to the toilet??? And some lady had sat down and put twenty
>dollars in and started playing and then idiot guy returned as he wanted
>his money back.
>Things turned sour very quickly cause idiot guy saw there was now
>$45.00 there and wanted it all and woman opportunist had said she had
>put $20 in and won something. Neither was going to compromise and idiot
>guy asked the barman to call security. They took quite a while to
>arrive (so much for being bored and having nothing to do!) Anyway when
>they arrived it was most of the Las Vegas Security personnel. There was
>one women and three guys in the immediate area and probably a couple of
>others in the vicinity watching and waiting. I spoke to women and told
>her what I'd seen but idiot guy was out for blood.
>If anything this would have been the incident that attracted us to the
<security people. It was happening at the very time many arrived at
>Charle's bar and they would certainly have realised who / what we were.
>After all how many girls look there best at 2:00am after a nights
>partying.
>As for being loud, I don't think as a group we were very loud or made
>remarks that were likely to unduly attract attention.
>Interestingly Gina went looking for the security guard who had spoken
>to the person above as I understand it couldn't find anyone "guarding"
>the restroom. I think she then promptly used it anyway and left.
>We were in the area for a long time 1:45am to 6:00am???? Afterwards
>Aiko, Gina and I had breakfast in the Café there and I know both Aiko
>and I used the rest room in café (actually I used it twice). The waiter
>and wait staff knew who we were as Gina had a long conversation with
>our waiter about his life story. No one seemed to care and if they did
>they didn't do anything about it.
>>I hate to say this, but large gatherings (especially when alcohol is
>>the primary item on the menu) of our people in mainstream situations
>>may just not be appropriate.
>IMHO this wasn't the problem here. It may have been an unfortunate set
>of circumstances that brought us to the security peoples attention.
>Also having said that I used the restrooms several times that night
>without incident.
>>One very good example of a well-behaved group in a mainstream venue
>>was that of the after-DLV Monday gathering at Tropicana. The dress was
>I liked Charles bar but it was "strip bar" with no tables etc, just a
>bar with stools. Probably not the venue for a biggish group and even
>though it was an ad-hoc activity it was attended by 20+ girls. Maybe it
>was too popular for the venue???
>>Very true. We do need to concentrate on the solitions and not on the
>DAMN! And I bought all this torture and inquisition equipment not to
>mention the stakes and bonfire fuel!
>From LeeAnna
>>>It is still each of our responsibility to make sure we are not the
>>>actual catalyst..... I feel that the GG that was arguing at the bar at
>>>around 2am was at least part of the catalyst for our problems this
>Well! Obviously I agree with this since I wrote that above!!
>>I'm hoping that Gina will comment about this, since she is the most
>>well acquainted with the property and its staff.
>As a side note one year N+I held there Executive InterOp conference in
>the Bellagio conference area. It was over two days and while I
>initially felt out of place being there I never had any issues with
>restrooms or staff or anything else. The only incident I have had had
>at the Bellagio was being addressed as "Good evening, Sir" by two young
>guys who were / or appeared a bit drunk! Other than that, including the
>night in question I have always been treated well, like a lady there.
. . . . .
>Public behaviour
>================
>>+3. When we used public washrooms we looked for rest rooms that were
>>+"family Friendly" or for restrooms that were "out of the way" and did
>The word "family bothers me a bit here but I agree with concept of
>using low traffic places where they're likely to be deserted or at best
>under utilised. In any case who wants to line up like real ladies... a
>recipe for a disaster in my personal opinion but that¹s another rave!
IIRC, what this referred to are the unisex restrooms that have started
to appear in some places and are designated with both the male and
female icons. These were originally intended for such things as a mom
with male kids, dad with female kids, both parents changing a baby,
etc., but they are obviously a good choice for t* people who wish to
perform necessary bodily functions.
. . . . .
>>Leah writes:
>>>I have always held the opinion that 'laying the groundwork' is the way
>>>to go on some things..... such as restrooms when a larger group is
>I for one do disagree with this policy. Where does it start and stop.
>If one CD goes to a mainstream place does she call / write ahead and
>ask for a restroom? Is it 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100? Where does it start
>and stop. And why create attention where in most cases attention is not
>required and things will be OK.
>I think in part this approach is trying to deal / mitigate the symptoms
>of the problems rather than the root cause, the TG people that can't /
>don't know how to act appropriately.
>Reading through this I see that someone had made arrangements at the
>San Remo however I only found out about them reading this. If
>arrangements are made, how do we (or anyone) ensure our people and
>those who aren't our people but are there anyway, are told. What
>happens if they don't follow the instructions and or guidelines? Isn't
>that making the situation worse, giving hotel management a chance to
>say we compromised but we couldn't keep our end of bargain / our people
>in line?
>>>Leah's comment in a recent mailing says it perfectly: 'I doubt most of
>>>the girls would wear something of that nature if they were going out by
>>>themselves for instance.'
>Ditto. And maybe that should be used to help those with dress problems
>to conduct a self test??? Would you go out by yourself in whatever
>you're wearing?
>>>>Yes, I know there are some callings for more mainstream venues, but if
>>>It may be interesting to see if those that are calling for an increase
>>>in mainstream venues could get together among themselves privately,
>>Hmmmm ... If I'm hearing you correctly, and please correct me if I'm
>>wrong, you're suggesting that those who have mainstream activities
>>as their priority in life organize them and make it clear they are
>>doing this independently of DLV? Is this what you mean?
>Well that¹s what happened at Bellagio for example. It wasn't an
>official activity but it had problems. And Treasure Island. Not an
>official activity but it had problems. The only one listed so far that
>was official was golf... I think.
>Apart from those activities where we have those DLV HERE signs hanging
>around why would anyone associate anything with DLV. Most people
>(civilians) have no idea, have never heard of and promptly forget about
>DLV anyway.
>I think we should be more mainstream but I also think the mainstream
>activities need to be sized appropriately for venue. This will be a
>challenge for all activities in the future if DLV continues to increase
>in size (number of attendees)
>>>>>I will dread the day that venues closes their doors, or have people
>>>I'm going to put an unpopular thought out for discussion. That a
>>>business would close its doors on us is a real possibility and would be
>>Although it's unlikely, it is a possibility. In Nevada, use of private
>Other than those places we visit on a regular basis there aren't that
>many places that would remember us from year to year. Staff and
>management changes, different days, etc, etc, etc.. And who's to say
>the problems don't come from other groups of TG'ers anyway? If we get
>banned it's no different from a sports team being banned for
>inappropriate behaviour. Key is to reduce the problem by dealing with
>it at source. IMHO.
>>>If an individual is so dense as to not 'get the hint' that he/she is
>>>not complying with the established norm of the group through peer
>In my experience "HINTS" do not work!
. . . . .
>SUGGESTION:
>My suggestion is that a one page straightforward hand out is prepared
>and printed. This should be handed out to all participants at the time
>they collect there badges. The text should be blunt and straightforward
>and ONLY cover the key issues, areas of concern that might affect them
>and others.
>The text should be straightforward but not in any way accusing and
>should be given to EVERYONE irrespective of their experience or
>longevity.
>Maybe it should be printed in 20 point font so that anyone with or
>without reading glasses can read it!
I know I've resisted handing out printed matter at DLV, after observing
that the major effect of it was to increase the daily volume of trash to
be disposed at Goodtimes, but if the group thinks this is a good thing,
I will go along with it.
Why don't you propose this suggestion to our ad-hoc committee. >>HINT<<
>While this won't necessarily stop all incidents it may help. Combined
>with Discussion List, Big Final Mailing and Verbal comments at
>activities the message might get through.
>I was once told that you need to tell them seven times seven different
>ways for the message to get through. Four and counting....!
>Other than that I can only go back to my original idea with torture
>equipment and witch burning activities! This will probably work in well
>with the newly established religious contingent, the nuns from "The
>order St Densie"! :-)
One thing we do need to get through is that the actions of some can have
very profound negative effects on others.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrivia:
This is the Diva Las Vegas 2004 organizational list.
One address for all items regarding this list, additions, removals,
changes, submissions, questions, etc.:
dlvorg@geekbabe.com <--- NOTE: all lower case
Please do not send binary attachments (photos, etc.) directly to the
list, as the list processor will not properly handle them. If you want
to send photos and the like, mail to: annie@annie.net
Archives of this list appear on the web at:
http://www.geekbabe.com/annie/org04arc/
To unsubscribe: Simply reply to this message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in either the Subject: field or the first line of an OTHERWISE BLANK
message body. The word "unsubscribe" (case is insignificant) should be
the only item in the subject field or the first line of the message,
justified to the left.
NOTE: WHEN UNSUBSCRIBING, THE FROM: LINE OF YOUR UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE
>>MUST<< HAVE THE SAME ADDRESS AS WHAT WE USE TO SEND TO YOU. IF IT
DOES NOT, THE UNSUBSCRIBE WILL FAIL, AND YOU MAY NOT GET A FAILURE
NOTICE. SPELLING COUNTS.
Please pay attention to the above. Many automated unsubscribe requests
fail for this reason.
To send material to this list: Send submission as regular e-mail to
the address: dlvorg@geekbabe.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 12:12:31 CDT