NationStates

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:50 pm**

Valystria wrote:
Stellonia wrote:Bathrooms are segregated according to sex, not according to gender.

No, it isn't. The signs don't say "male" and "female". The signs say "men's" and "women's". Bathrooms are gender segregated.

Stellonia wrote:Some people are uncomfortable using the restroom with people of the ~~opposite~~ other sex.

Then they should stop being sexists.

If someone said they're uncomfortable around black people, I'd call them a racist. You're doing the same thing about what sex a person happens to be of. That's sexism.

What's wrong with that? Men and women differ physically, psychologically, and physiologically. They can separate themselves when urinating or defecating. Instead of quashing the idea of sexism, in some sense, one must be able to embrace it.

Also, racism really should not be an issue, unless you are saying along the lines of dark-skinned people being subjugated, enslaved, or what not. In addition, people are entitled to be uncomfortable around here. One should be free to express one's feelings, let along expressing that in speech.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:34 pm**

Gim wrote:
Valystria wrote:No, it isn't. The signs don't say "male" and "female". The signs say "men's" and "women's". Bathrooms are gender segregated.

Then they should stop being sexists.

If someone said they're uncomfortable around black people, I'd call them a racist. You're doing the same thing about what sex a person happens to be of. That's sexism.

What's wrong with that? Men and women differ physically, psychologically, and physiologically. They can separate themselves when urinating or defecating. Instead of quashing the idea of sexism, in some sense, one must be able to embrace it.

Also, racism really should not be an issue, unless you are saying along the lines of dark-skinned people being subjugated, enslaved, or what not. In addition, people are entitled to be uncomfortable around here. One should be free to express one's feelings, let along expressing that in speech.

Being different is not a reason to segregate.

There's no actual reason to have separate bathrooms. Other than your sexism. You're saying "because mah sexism, because I feel uncomfortable around people of the other sex". Get over it.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:40 pm**

Valystria wrote:
Gim wrote:What's wrong with that? Men and women differ physically, psychologically, and physiologically. They can separate themselves when urinating or defecating. Instead of quashing the idea of sexism, in some sense, one must be able to embrace it.

Also, racism really should not be an issue, unless you are saying along the lines of dark-skinned people being subjugated, enslaved, or what not. In addition, people are entitled to be uncomfortable around here. One should be free to express one's feelings, let along expressing that in speech.

Being different is not a reason to segregate.

There's no actual reason to have separate bathrooms. Other than your sexism. You're saying "because mah sexism, because I feel uncomfortable around people of the other sex". Get over it.

You're not segregating. Just because you call someone black, white, or magenta doesn't mean you are avoiding or ostracizing them.

Unlike you, women feel uncomfortable sharing sinks and toilets with men. Personally, I don't mind, but some people do.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:56 pm**

I'm all for mixed restrooms because I believe it will help narrow the gap of inequality between men and women. However; for the sake of practicality I would not recommend abolishing the urinals. Especially in places with large crowds like train stations, airports, theaters or a stadium urinals will help shorten waiting time at restrooms.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:56 pm**

Gim wrote:
Valystria wrote:
Being different is not a reason to segregate.

There's no actual reason to have separate bathrooms. Other than your sexism. You're saying "because mah sexism, because I feel uncomfortable around people of the other sex". Get over it.

You're not segregating. Just because you call someone black, white, or magenta doesn't mean you are avoiding or ostracizing them.

Having separate facilities for the white folks and the black folks is segregation. But I mean, no it's not really an issue. Blacks and whites are psychologically, physiologically and physically different. So let's segregate.
That same awful rationalization is what you're doing to come up with a reason for segregated bathrooms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)

You're using selectively applied fallacious reasoning.

Gim wrote:Unlike you, women feel uncomfortable sharing sinks and toilets with men. Personally, I don't mind, but some people do.

What? I am a woman.
Stop saying how women feel. You've already demonstrated your ineptness at stereotyping how men and women feel about unisex bathrooms.

You haven't provided a single reason for why segregated bathrooms should exist. All you keep saying is "but women want this, but women want that, but I'm a sexist who is uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms."

Yeah, you don't have a real reason to be against unisex bathrooms. Other than your sexism and your rigid determination to stereotype men and women on how they feel about unisex bathrooms.

Being sexist is not a reason to segregate any more than racism is a reason to segregate.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:03 pm**

Valystria wrote:
Gim wrote:
You're not segregating. Just because you call someone black, white, or magenta doesn't mean you are avoiding or ostracizing them.

Having separate facilities for the white folks and the black folks is segregation. But I mean, no it's not really an issue. Blacks and whites are psychologically, physiologically and physically different. So let's segregate.
That same awful rationalization is what you're doing to come up with a reason for segregated bathrooms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)

You're using selectively applied fallacious reasoning.

Gim wrote:Unlike you, women feel uncomfortable sharing sinks and toilets with men. Personally, I don't mind, but some people do.

What? I am a woman.
Stop saying how women feel. You've already demonstrated your ineptness at stereotyping how men and women feel about unisex bathrooms.

Valystria wrote:No, women and men won't mind using the same unisex room. Unless they are sexists. You're being sexist in your assumptions about people. There have been women in this thread in support of unisex rooms and men against unisex rooms. There goes your sexist and faulty stereotyping about what men and women want.

You haven't provided a single reason for why segregated bathrooms should exist. All you keep saying is "but women want this, but women want that, but I'm a sexist who is uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms."

Yeah, you don't have a real reason to be against unisex bathrooms. Other than your sexism and your rigid determination to stereotype men and women on how they feel about unisex bathrooms.

Being sexist is not a reason to segregate any more than racism is a reason to segregate.

Racism is not segregation is what I am saying. Just because you joke around and call your dark-skinned friend, "black", does not mean you are segregating them.

Also, I don't see how separating men and women is sexism. Neither is considered inferior. You may be a woman, and you may be fine with sharing bathrooms, and I do, too, but some other people obviously have issues that go beyond those pertaining to privacy, thereby wanting bathrooms for separate genders.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:45 am**

Gim wrote:Racism is not segregation is what I am saying. Just because you joke around and call your dark-skinned friend, "black", does not mean you are segregating them.

No but separating bathrooms/ whatever because some people might not be fine sharing that with black people is.

Gim wrote:Also, I don't see how separating men and women is sexism. Neither is considered inferior. You may be a woman, and you may be fine with sharing bathrooms, and I do, too, but some other people obviously have issues that go beyond those pertaining to privacy, thereby wanting bathrooms for separate genders.

Then those people have an option to a) get over themselves or b) hold it in until they get home to their presumably unisex bathroom. Society doesn't need to cater to every irrational whims of everyone especially when doing so is inefficient and unproductive.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:47 am**

Marty wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Yeh. I don't care about them.
I'm sure some whites preferred segregated restaurants.

Top quality rebuttal there, mate.

It pretty much is.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:52 am**

I think I would feel uncomfortable being in a restroom with women. Many people would also try peeking into the opposite sex toilets. And the urinals making lines smaller... We can put extra toilets in female restrooms.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:52 am**

Is this thread just an attempt to maybe see someone of the opposite sex's booty before you die?

No but seriously, I genuinely don't know what to say to this, I mean, I don't like doing my business around strangers of the same sex, let alone the opposite sex. This to me is just absurd..

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:59 am**

Did you read this post and try to assess how ridiculous you sound? I feel like I am on tumblr right now. I stopped taking this seriously when you started praddling on about the unfair advantages of urinals and how they should be taken away, you know, for everyone's sake. *sigh*

I hate the world I live in. America has no culture, it has no real traditions or values. I swear, a few years ago people used to express their liberal opinions (and most of the time I'd be inclined to agree with them) on here without sounding like they came from the cookie cutter tumblr white guilt man hating army. Nowadays, it's all the same. And it pisses me off.

To keep this relevent, no, gender segregated bathrooms are not a problem. Find something else to wail about.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:04 am**

The Vekta-Helghast Empire wrote:Is this thread just an attempt to maybe see someone of the opposite sex's booty before you die?

No but seriously, I genuinely don't know what to say to this, I mean, I don't like doing my business around strangers of the same sex, let alone the opposite sex. This to me is just absurd..

Apparently, some people here in this thread think people who object to a unifird bathroom should stop wishing for every bit of comfort they need in a segregated bathroom, because having it is costly and ineffective. :roll:

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:10 am**

Great Nepal wrote:Then those people have an option to a) get over themselves or b) hold it in until they get home to their presumably unisex bathroom. Society doesn't need to cater to every irrational whims of everyone especially when doing so is inefficient and unproductive.

Oh really? The EXACT same could be said of those who want bathrooms to be "desegregated".
And it would make for a better argument.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:16 am**

Oudland wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:Then those people have an option to a) get over themselves or b) hold it in until they get home to their presumably unisex bathroom. Society doesn't need to cater to every irrational whims of everyone especially when doing so is inefficient and unproductive.

Oh really? The EXACT same could be said of those who want bathrooms to be "desegregated".
And it would make for a better argument.

How exactly would desegregating bathrooms result in inefficiency?

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:25 am**

Great Nepal wrote:
Oudland wrote:
Oh really? The EXACT same could be said of those who want bathrooms to be "desegregated".
And it would make for a better argument.

How exactly would desegregating bathrooms result in inefficiency?

It would probably be more efficient. But the argument is silly and, luckily, there aren't enough idiots out there to "unify the restrooms" of the nation. It sounds like a bad NS issue.

The part I meant was where you said, "Society doesn't need to cater to every irrational whim". I literally couldn't have said it any better.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:43 am**

Oudland wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:How exactly would desegregating bathrooms result in inefficiency?

It would probably be more efficient. But the argument is silly and, luckily, there aren't enough idiots out there to "unify the restrooms" of the nation. It sounds like a bad NS issue.

The part I meant was where you said, "Society doesn't need to cater to every irrational whim". I literally couldn't have said it any better.

Explain how desegregating restrooms (which you just admitted would be more efficient) is irrational.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:47 am**

Oudland wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:How exactly would desegregating bathrooms result in inefficiency?

It would probably be more efficient. But the argument is silly and, luckily, there aren't enough idiots out there to "unify the restrooms" of the nation. It sounds like a bad NS issue.

The part I meant was where you said, "Society doesn't need to cater to every irrational whim". I literally couldn't have said it any better.

Because efficiency is clearly irrational, perhaps we should get rid of factories and go back to more rational hand crafting everything while we are at it?

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:57 am**

Great Nepal wrote:
Oudland wrote:
It would probably be more efficient. But the argument is silly and, luckily, there aren't enough idiots out there to "unify the restrooms" of the nation. It sounds like a bad NS issue.

The part I meant was where you said, "Society doesn't need to cater to every irrational whim". I literally couldn't have said it any better.

Because efficiency is clearly irrational, perhaps we should get rid of factories and go back to more rational hand crafting everything while we are at it?

You know I wasn't calling efficiency irrational. But following your line of thought, in the name of efficiency, perhaps we should kill off all the old people. Right? I mean they're all cis scum anyway! And let's just combine all male and female genitalia too. The penis is the highest form of gender inequality, you know, so we will give everyone paginas!

That way men will have to sit when they pee it's not fair that they can just stand. If they refuse, we will cut them off at the legs. Literally and figuratively!

In the name of efficiency, let so do away with all notions of privacy. Let's forsake all rational thought in the name of equality! Let's be morons!

Everyone, follow me on my glorious ride to tumblr!

*mounts steed and gallops away*

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:03 am**

Segregated bathrooms are certainly an inefficient use of space.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:10 am**

Oudland wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:Because efficiency is clearly irrational, perhaps we should get rid of factories and go back to more rational hand crafting everything while we are at it?

You know I wasn't calling efficiency irrational.

Yes, you were. You admitted that desegregating restrooms was efficient, then you declared desegregating restrooms to be irrational.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:13 am**

Dyakovo wrote:
Oudland wrote:
You know I wasn't calling efficiency irrational.

Yes, you were. You admitted that desegregating restrooms was efficient, then you declared desegregating restrooms to be irrational.

No, I wasn't. It would be efficient, but then what's to stop a pervy dude from ogling some poor young girl where she should be able to have her privacy when doing her business? And vice versa? But hey, taking away the urinal from men is totally rational.

It's not only irrational, it's moronic.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:15 am**

The Holy Therns wrote:Segregated bathrooms are certainly an inefficient use of space.

How exactly would not segregated bathroom use less space than them given that they would need to be usable for the same amount of person each "segregated" bathroom was?

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:18 am**

Oudland wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:Yes, you were. You admitted that desegregating restrooms was efficient, then you declared desegregating restrooms to be irrational.

No, I wasn't.

Your inability/unwillingness to see or admit it does not change reality.

It would be efficient, but then what's to stop a pervy dude from ogling some poor young girl where she should be able to have her privacy when doing her business? And vice versa?

Walls and doors.

But hey, taking away the urinal from men is totally rational.

The OP is the only one suggesting removing urinals. Removal of urinals is not a requirement for desegregating restrooms.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:18 am**

Aelex wrote:
The Holy Therns wrote:Segregated bathrooms are certainly an inefficient use of space.

How exactly would not segregated bathroom use less space than them given that they would need to be usable for the same amount of person each "segregated" bathroom was?

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:22 am**

Dyakovo wrote:
Oudland wrote:
No, I wasn't.

Your inability/unwillingness to see or admit it does not change reality.
It would be efficient, but then what's to stop a pervy dude from ogling some poor young girl where she should be able to have her privacy when doing her business? And vice versa?

Walls and doors.
But hey, taking away the urinal from men is totally rational.

The OP is the only one suggesting removing urinals. Removal of urinals is not a requirement for desegregating restrooms.

Men and women should not be forced to use the bathroom together. I wasn't arguing that it would be less efficient. Your continued assertions that I was are really, really annoying. You have a good day now, with your arguments on bathroom efficiency.

Lol

NationStates

Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?