Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Minoriteeburg]

Well at least that last post wasn't sexist.....

[Aurora Novus]

Well at least that last post wasn't sexist.....

Im assuming you mean the post just above mine, and not mine, considering we posted at the exact same time?

[Minoriteeburg]

Well at least that last post wasn't sexist.....

Im assuming you mean the post just above mine, and not mine, considering we posted at the exact same time?

I guess we will never know.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You are claiming that there is no difference between men and women, when historically, genetically, logically, there are very, very, many differences between the two groups.

I'm claiming there are no relevant differences that are so large and innate, it would give rise to a justification to define them as two separate groups, and treat them in separate ways, and keep them divide between one another.

You claim there is no difference between white people and black people

Again, there are no relevant differences that are so large and innate, it would give rise to a justification to define them as two separate groups. and treat them in separate ways, and keep them divided between one another. This is the fundamental basis of all anti-racist policy and reasoning. Do you oppose this?

when you can walk down any street in Montgomery or Boston and see that you are very, very wrong.

The fact that people are treated differently, when they are not different, doesn't mean they are different; it means they are being mistreated. People refusing to recognize people as part of the same collective, and treat them like they are part of a different group, doesn't actually make them innately part of a different group.

I can all an apple and orange, but it's still an apple.

I can treat blacks and whites differently, but that doesn't make them different.

And if we want that behavior to stop, the solution is not to encourage people to think in the very way which causes mistreatment to begin with. It is to encourage people to become, as you said, colourblind. Only when we stop pretending we are separate, will we ever stop treating each other like we are separate.

You can not claim that recognizing and dealing with the reality around us is devaluing to the people who have benefited from those actions.

Yes, I can. Just because something is beneficial to someone, doesn't mean it doesn't dehumanize them.

You can't claim that recognizing and dealing with the reality that some people just want to SHIT IN PRIVATE, away from other genders that they do not trust, is devaluing to everyone, when it is recognizing the value in their feelings and thoughts.

Yes, I can, because thinking in such a way divides us and makes us look at one another like separate groups. That's dehumanizing.

Further more, just because some people WANT something a particular way, doesn't mean it SHOULD be that way. Not all feelings and thoughts deserve to be recognized and fulfilled.

To compare the right to defecate with the right to drink from the same water fountain, or to vote, is a pathetic, juvenile, argument and honestly deserves the derision it is getting.

It is not juvenile in any way, and is a completely accurate comparison. both are cases of unsound restrictions being forced upon other people. both are cases of arbitrary reasons being used to attempt to justify a form of segregation. Both are cases of where thinking of people as if they were a separate group is both (1) false, and (2) harmful. There was no sound justification for racial segregation, and there has yet to be anyone who proposes sound reason for sexual segregation. "I want it that way" is no more of a sound reason than it is when it coms to racial issues.

You may not like it that your own bigoted views are comparable to racism, but that's your fault. Reality bites.

I am quite confident that someone who comes along and compares our two points of view will find that mine isn't the bigoted one.

[Aurora Novus]

I am quite confident that someone who comes along and compares our two points of view will find that mine isn't the bigoted one.

Considering the comparison to racism has been done before, and not by me?

Confidence is deceiving.

By the way, I'll take your one sentence to mean you have no actual counter-arguments to my claims, but are too arrogant to concede your own faulty reasoning?

[Linux and the X]

Aurora, you have had transgender people, both binary and not — that is, the people who have actual problems related to gendered bathrooms — tell you that there's nothing wrong with having gendered bathrooms so long as gender-neutral bathrooms are also available. You are wrong. Get, as you say, over it.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I am quite confident that someone who comes along and compares our two points of view will find that mine isn't the bigoted one.

Considering the comparison to racism has been done before, and not by me?

Confidence is deceiving.

By the way, I'll take your one sentence to mean you have no actual counter-arguments to my claims, but are too arrogant to concede your own faulty reasoning?

No, you can take it as your arguments have no merit or rational standing in a universe that is not solely governed by automatons. That you are conflating way too many things to rationally have a discussion that could bear anything remotely resembling reason. That you are willfully, and honestly childishly, ignoring reality because it doesn't fit what I view as a demented way of thinking.

So basically, I'm not dealing with you anymore, because nothing you have said has managed to make the slightest bit of real-world sense.

[Aurora Novus]

Aurora, you have had transgender people, both binary and not — that is, the people who have actual problems related to gendered bathrooms

And I don't? Why, because I don't fit into your special, tiny group (which by the way, I have yet to confirm or deny)?

Classy.

— tell you that there's nothing wrong with having gendered bathrooms so long as gender-neutral bathrooms are also available.

I know they have.

How does that have any relation to my argument however, or the title of the topic?Just because some transgenders would be okay with having gender neutral roos, in addition to segregated rooms, doesn't mean I have to be. We're not all a hive mind you know.

You are wrong. Get, as you say, over it.

I'm wrong? On what grounds?

Do you actually have sound reasoning to justify the existence of segregated rooms?

No?

Right then.

[Distruzio]

There will never be actual equality until this happens.

Which, of course, means I disapprove.

For real?

Really?

Really. Equality will never exist until this happens. Which means I disapprove of it ever happening.

[The Steel Magnolia]

It's not a revision of my argument. You came at a post of mine about how personal appeal does not, itself, justify something logically. You criticized me for devaluing men and women as human beings, or separate "races" as human beings, by not treating them like sperate groups. Which had nothing to do with the post you quoted. But I responded to you anyway.

I countered by claiming that not only was that false, but the opposite was true; that dividing them into groups, and treating them like they are separate groups, is was devalues them as humans, and is what holds us back as a collective society.

It's not a revision, and it's not me backtracking.

You are claiming that there is no difference between men and women, when historically, genetically, logically, there are very, very, many differences between the two groups. You claim there is no difference between white people and black people, when you can walk down any street in Montgomery or Boston and see that you are very, very wrong.

You can not claim that recognizing and dealing with the reality around us is devaluing to the people who have benefited from those actions.

You can't claim that recognizing and dealing with the reality that some people just want to SHIT IN PRIVATE, away from other genders that they do not trust, is devaluing to everyone, when it is recognizing the value in their feelings and thoughts.

To compare the right to defecate with the right to drink from the same water fountain, or to vote, is a pathetic, juvenile, argument and honestly deserves the derision it is getting.

Thank you, that was tiring.

[The Steel Magnolia]

You are claiming that there is no difference between men and women, when historically, genetically, logically, there are very, very, many differences between the two groups.

I'm claiming there are no relevant differences that are so large and innate, it would give rise to a justification to define them as two separate groups, and treat them in separate ways, and keep them divide between one another.

You claim there is no difference between white people and black people

Again, there are no relevant differences that are so large and innate, it would give rise to a justification to define them as two separate groups. and treat them in separate ways, and keep them divided between one another. This is the fundamental basis of all anti-racist policy and reasoning. Do you oppose this?

when you can walk down any street in Montgomery or Boston and see that you are very, very wrong.

The fact that people are treated differently, when they are not different, doesn't mean they are different; it means they are being mistreated. People refusing to recognize people as part of the same collective, and treat them like they are part of a different group, doesn't actually make them innately part of a different group.

I can all an apple and orange, but it's still an apple.

I can treat blacks and whites differently, but that doesn't make them different.

And if we want that behavior to stop, the solution is not to encourage people to think in the very way which causes mistreatment to begin with. It is to encourage people to become, as you said, colourblind. Only when we stop pretending we are separate, will we ever stop treating each other like we are separate.

You can not claim that recognizing and dealing with the reality around us is devaluing to the people who have benefited from those actions.

Yes, I can. Just because something is beneficial to someone, doesn't mean it doesn't dehumanize them.

You can't claim that recognizing and dealing with the reality that some people just want to SHIT IN PRIVATE, away from other genders that they do not trust, is devaluing to everyone, when it is recognizing the value in their feelings and thoughts.

Yes, I can, because thinking in such a way divides us and makes us look at one another like separate groups. That's dehumanizing.

Further more, just because some people WANT something a particular way, doesn't mean it SHOULD be that way. Not all feelings and thoughts deserve to be recognized and fulfilled.

To compare the right to defecate with the right to drink from the same water fountain, or to vote, is a pathetic, juvenile, argument and honestly deserves the derision it is getting.

It is not juvenile in any way, and is a completely accurate comparison. both are cases of unsound restrictions being forced upon other people. both are cases of arbitrary reasons being used to attempt to justify a form of segregation. Both are cases of where thinking of people as if they were a separate group is both (1) false, and (2) harmful. There was no sound justification for racial segregation, and there has yet to be anyone who proposes sound reason for sexual segregation. "I want it that way" is no more of a sound reason than it is when it coms to racial issues.

You may not like it that your own bigoted views are comparable to racism, but that's your fault. Reality bites.

Okay. I laughed.

[Linux and the X]

Aurora, you have had transgender people, both binary and not — that is, the people who have actual problems related to gendered bathrooms

And I don't? Why, because I don't fit into your special, tiny group (which by the way, I have yet to confirm or deny)?

"I totally could be [insert relevant minority here]!" is almost always "I don't want to admit that I'm not part of [insert relevant minority here] because that'd be admitting I have no place in this, but I don't want to lie!" If this is an (incredibly rare) exception, do let us know.

Do you actually have sound reasoning to justify the existence of segregated rooms?

Myriad reasons have already been given to you.

[Aurora Novus]

No, you can take it as your arguments have no merit or rational standing in a universe that is not solely governed by automatons.

As judged by whom? You? On what grounds? Your non-existant counter-argument?

That you are conflating way too many things to rationally have a discussion that could bear anything remotely resembling reason. That you are willfully, and honestly childishly, ignoring reality because it doesn't fit what I view as a demented way of thinking.

Again, as judged by whom? You? "You don't agree with me, so that means you have a distorted view of reality!

I'm not going to explain how...but you do so nyeh!!!"



Tell me, how is the notion that the way people are treated, and the way people are, can be different, a notion which "childishly ignores reality", hm?

Is a bed which is jumped on no longer a bed? Is a man who is treated like a woman, no longer a man? No, of course not. The way something is treated, and the way it is, can be two completely opposite things.

The only one here disconnected from reality is you. "Hey guys, you know how people are divided into groups, which are then in turn treated poorly and looked down upon by others groups, and keep us all separated and estranged from one another? Well I've got the perfect solution to all this bigotry and negative treatment. Let's...ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO TREAT OTHERS LIKE MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS!"

So basically, I'm not dealing with you anymore, because nothing you have said has managed to make the slightest bit of real-world sense.

Right then.

In other words, no counter-argument.

Cheers.

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, you can take it as your arguments have no merit or rational standing in a universe that is not solely governed by automatons.

As judged by whom? You? On what grounds? Your non-existant counter-argument?

That you are conflating way too many things to rationally have a discussion that could bear anything remotely resembling reason. That you are willfully, and honestly childishly, ignoring reality because it doesn't fit what I view as a demented way of thinking.

Again, as judged by whom? You? "You don't agree with me, so that means you have a distorted view of reality!

I'm not going to explain how...but you do so nyeh!!!"



Tell me, how is the notion that the way people are treated, and the way people are, can be different, a notion which "childishly ignores reality", hm?

Is a bed which is jumped on no longer a bed? Is a man who is treated like a woman, no longer a man? No, of course not. The way something is treated, and the way it is, can be two completely opposite things.

The only one here disconnected from reality is you. "Hey guys, you know how people are divided into groups, which are then in turn treated poorly and looked down upon by others groups, and keep us all separated and estranged from one another? Well I've got the perfect solution to all this bigotry and negative treatment. Let's...ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO TREAT OTHERS LIKE MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS!"

So basically, I'm not dealing with you anymore, because nothing you have said has managed to make the slightest bit of real-world sense.

Right then.

In other words, no counter-argument.

Cheers.

What you have just done here, literally, is:

"WALLABY OCELOT MANGO DOWN THE TUBA WITH SCUBA SKIS. I WIN!"

[Aurora Novus]

"I totally could be [insert relevant minority here]!" is almost always "I don't want to admit that I'm not part of [insert relevant minority here] because that'd be admitting I have no place in this, but I don't want to lie!" If this is an (incredibly rare) exception, do let us know.

I don't identify with either the male sex or female sex.

The reason I don't bring it up is because it's irrelevant. Whether or not I identify with one particular sex or not, has no bearing on (1) whether or not my arguments are correct, and (2) whether or not, as part of the argument, I am on the minority side.

Suffice to say, you're wrong. Completely and utterly. Try actually thinking critically next time, instead of making baseless assumptions.

Myriad reasons have already been given to you.

You say that, but it's not there. The only reason constantly tossed out is personal preference, which is an invalid reason. Safety was brought up, but no one has bothered to actually make a case that segregated rooms are safer than unisex rooms (and in fact, I have made a case to suggest the opposite, which even an opponent of mine agreed was valid).

So no, a sound reason has yet to be provided.

Do you have one?

If not, then be silent.

[Aurora Novus]

What you have just done here, literally, is:

"WALLABY OCELOT MANGO DOWN THE TUBA WITH SCUBA SKIS. I WIN!"

Hardly. My post was coherent, and had a point to it.

Yours is nothing more than garbled nonsense, for the purpose of antagonizing me. It's trolling.

Knock it off.

[The Emerald Dawn]

What you have just done here, literally, is:

"WALLABY OCELOT MANGO DOWN THE TUBA WITH SCUBA SKIS. I WIN!"

Hardly. My post was coherent, and had a point to it.

Yours is nothing more than garbled nonsense, for the purpose of antagonizing me. It's trolling.

Knock it off.

No. Your post wasn't grounded in common reality, and instead reflected a view of the world that is not only demeaning to many, but outright patronizing to whole swathes of society that marched to create equal opportunities where none existed. It was garbled nonsense, and therefore was reflected quite accurately by my summation of it.

[The Steel Magnolia]

"I totally could be [insert relevant minority here]!" is almost always "I don't want to admit that I'm not part of [insert relevant minority here] because that'd be admitting I have no place in this, but I don't want to lie!" If this is an (incredibly rare) exception, do let us know.

I don't identify with either the male sex or female sex.

The reason I don't bring it up is because it's irrelevant. Whether or not I identify with one particular sex or not, has no bearing on (1) whether or not my arguments are correct, and (2) whether or not, as part of the argument, I am on the minority side.

Suffice to say, you're wrong. Completely and utterly. Try actually thinking critically next time, instead of making baseless assumptions.

So you're agender then, which falls under the trans* umbrella.

Your ideology, as I've mentioned before, is the sort of bullshit Wilchens-esque stuff that's completely fucking inane.

You say that, but it's not there. The only reason constantly tossed out is personal preference, which is an invalid reason.

Says you. Policy makers say differently. Personal preference is often the only reason we make legislation.

[Aurora Novus]

No. Your post wasn't grounded in common reality, and instead reflected a view of the world that is not only demeaning to many, but outright patronizing to whole swathes of society that marched to create equal opportunities where none existed. It was garbled nonsense, and therefore was reflected quite accurately by my summation of it.

1) "Common reality" does not necessarily mean reality.
2) You continue to say this, yet provide no counter-argument, or explanation for how it was false. Why should anyone take you seriously? Why should anyone believe you?
3) I don't give a damn who it's patronizing to, all I care about is whether or not it's true. Take your emotional appeals elsewhere.
4) It was not garbled nonsense, and it was not some witty comeback on your part. It was you, taking an argument of mine, and completely ignoring it, for the sole purpose of trying to illicite a response from me. On no basis other than you don't like what I'm saying. There was nothing intellectual about it.

[The Emerald Dawn]

No. Your post wasn't grounded in common reality, and instead reflected a view of the world that is not only demeaning to many, but outright patronizing to whole swathes of society that marched to create equal opportunities where none existed. It was garbled nonsense, and therefore was reflected quite accurately by my summation of it.

1) "Common reality" does not necessarily mean reality.
2) You continue to say this, yet provide no counter-argument, or explanation for how it was false. Why should anyone take you seriously? Why should anyone believe you?
3) I don't give a damn who it's patronizing to, all I care about is whether or not it's true. Take your emotional appeals elsewhere.
4) It was not garbled nonsense, and it was not some witty comeback on your part. It was you, taking an argument of mine, and completely ignoring it, for the sole purpose of trying to illicite a response from me. On no basis other than you don't like what I'm saying. There was nothing intellectual about it.

I have given you example after example. That's the ignoring part of my previous posts, you keep doing this.

"Common reality" is the thing all of us agree to share. We all live in it, and interact through it. It's an immutable part of existence, considering there is literally no way of proving that you are anything but a five legged octopus with a bad haircut. Perception is reality, that's the root of all modern societies.

I understand you don't care about patronizing. It makes you a not-nice person in my opinion.

It's still garbled nonsense, because it has no grounding, no supporting documentation, and has been easily disproven by people in this thread.

[Aurora Novus]

So you're agender then, which falls under the trans* umbrella.

Which, as I said before, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I should not be judged based on my body, or how I define myself. It has no bearing on my arguments.

Your ideology, as I've mentioned before, is the sort of bullshit Wilchens-esque stuff that's completely fucking inane.

And yet you never bother to actually argue against it, just continually insult it without basis.

Until you actually bother to build a case, I see no reason to further my conversation with you.

Says you. Policy makers say differently. Personal preference is often the only reason we make legislation.

Again, that doesn't make it logically sound. Logic is an objective system. It's not a matter of "says me" it's a matter of logic. Just because policy makers use personal preference as the basis for their decisions, doesn't make that logical, nor justified.

So drop the arguments from authority, and actually make an argument for what a sound reason would be. "I want" is not a sound reason.

[Aurora Novus]

I have given you example after example. That's the ignoring part of my previous posts, you keep doing this.

You have given no such examples. Quote one thing you have stated in support of segregated rooms, that does not have a basis in personal preference.

"Common reality" is the thing all of us agree to share.

That does not make it real however. Just because people "agree to think" a certain way, doesn't make what they think true.

We all live in it, and interact through it. It's an immutable part of existence, considering there is literally no way of proving that you are anything but a five legged octopus with a bad haircut. Perception is reality, that's the root of all modern societies.

False. Perception is not reality. There are things which exist and have existed beyond our perception. They were no less real when we couldn't perceive them, or when we perceived them incorrectly. We used to think the earth was flat. Are you honestly trying to say that, because the collective people thought the world was flat, it was? Hogwash.

I understand you don't care about patronizing. It makes you a not-nice person in my opinion.

I don;t care about being nice. I care about being truthful.

It's still garbled nonsense, because it has no grounding, no supporting documentation, and has been easily disproven by people in this thread.

Easily disproven? You mean, by constantly chattering a false premise of "I want it, so I should get it"?

As for no grounding, and no documentation, you've provided none of these things, so where do you get off?

I ask you, once again, provide sound justification for segregated restrooms. Do it. Now. If you feel yu've already done it, repost something. But if your claim is going to be "people want it", that is not a sound argument. If your claim is going to be "city planners care about what people want", that too is not a sound argument. What people want, and what people care about, is not necessarily logical and just. You're making the assumption that it is in this case, but you've given no supplemental justification for how it is. Thus your argument is unsound.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Don't underestimate the will of those who want segregated bathrooms. Unless there arises some crunching need to be more efficient in waste management and energy/space use forced the society to radically change, it'll last long after you and I are gone, I reckon.

Or on the contrary, those people with the "strong will" will become the minority as more generations pass and people become more accustomed to a single washroom for everyone.

Perhaps. But I'd bet against it.

A societal change that would push people with the "strong will" to become a minority so much so that even without a top down effort, most of the world's restrooms will become integrated? Unlikely. I suspect it will boom to become a protest statement of sorts and will fade into niche where they are locally desired and/or necessary due to space and resource constraints.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong in my lifetime, but unless there is a top down effort to enforce integration, I very much doubt some progressive shared understanding of prejudice inherent in gender segregated public restrooms will enthusiastically give rise to integrated public restrooms. Instead of gender neutral restrooms, I foresee legislative effort to criminalize discrimination against transgenders as the most likely next step that slowly evolves our view about gender, but I suspect we as a society will still struggle with such changes within the confines of male-female dichotomy for a long time that prevents us to accept gender neutral public restrooms.

There are just so many more things we are going to struggle with before we come to gender neutral public restrooms. I think we'd be more comfortable in near future discussing Gay/Transgender rights and how our laws should change to accommodate them, than discuss gender neutral public restrooms. But of course, it speaks strongly to my inherent bias more than anything.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I have given you example after example. That's the ignoring part of my previous posts, you keep doing this.

You have given no such examples. Quote one thing you have stated in support of segregated rooms, that does not have a basis in personal preference.

"Common reality" is the thing all of us agree to share.

That does not make it real however. Just because people "agree to think" a certain way, doesn't make what they think true.

We all live in it, and interact through it. It's an immutable part of existence, considering there is literally no way of proving that you are anything but a five legged octopus with a bad haircut. Perception is reality, that's the root of all modern societies.

False. Perception is not reality. There are things which exist and have existed beyond our perception. They were no less real when we couldn't perceive them, or when we perceived them incorrectly. We used to think the earth was flat. Are you honestly trying to say that, because the collective people thought the world was flat, it was? Hogwash.

I understand you don't care about patronizing. It makes you a not-nice person in my opinion.

I don;t care about being nice. I care about being truthful.

It's still garbled nonsense, because it has no grounding, no supporting documentation, and has been easily disproven by people in this thread.

Easily disproven? You mean, by constantly chattering a false premise of "I want it, so I should get it"?

As for no grounding, and no documentation, you've provided none of these things, so where do you get off?

I ask you, once again, provide sound justification for segregated restrooms. Do it. Now. If you feel yu've already done it, repost something. But if your claim is going to be "people want it", that is not a sound argument. If your claim is going to be "city planners care about what people want", that too is not a sound argument. What people want, and what people care about, is not necessarily logical and just. You're making the assumption that it is in this case, but you've given no supplemental justification for how it is. Thus your argument is unsound.

"Personal preference" is kind of key here. See, it's "personal preference" that women not get a wand shoved inside them just to get Plan B. It's "Personal Preference" that black people not be referred to as niggers by the government. "Personal Preference" is, literally, the basis for almost all laws.

See, Quantum Theory is real. It also makes things true simply because people "agree to think" that way about them. Again, you have no basis in reality.

You're strawmanning the perception = reality argument. You can't call someone a nigger and not deal with the social ramifications of having done that. That's because the black person is going to perceive that as an insult, despite your intent to call him purple.

I'm glad we agree, you're not nice.

We haven't been chanting, or chattering, "I want it, so I should get it". We've been providing you with very real, verified, socially and scientifically proven facts. You've chosen to ignore them because your entire worldview seems to be, "I'm right, you're wrong."

[Aurora Novus]

"Personal preference" is kind of key here.

"I've posted so many different reasons, you're just blind to them!"

"Oh really? Name one that dind't start with personal preference."

"Well you see personal preference..."

See, it's "personal preference" that women not get a wand shoved inside them just to get Plan B. It's "Personal Preference" that black people not be referred to as niggers by the government. "Personal Preference" is, literally, the basis for almost all laws.

Yes, but as I stated, it's personal preference, when combined with other things. Personal preference, in of itself, is not a sound basis for anything. It has to always be coupled with some supplemental reason. Like "I don't want to be subject to discrimination (personal preference), because the discrimination I am being subject to is unjust (moral imperative) and harmful to me (human wellbeing).

But simply saying "I want" or "the majority wants" or "social planners care about" is rooting your complaint in simple, childish, selfish philosophy, which does not logically justify anything.

See, Quantum Theory is real. It also makes things true simply because people "agree to think" that way about them. Again, you have no basis in reality.

Just the opposite. If I think I have wings and can fly, that doesn't make it true. If I think that the sun rotates around the earth, and that I am the center of the enter universe, that doesn't make it so. You are completely disassociated with reality, if you think merely "agree to think" is a valid means to make something "truth". People can agree to lies and misinformation.

You're strawmanning the perception = reality argument.

No, I'm not at all. You're trying to make the boldly ridiculous claim that only what we perceive is real. This flies in the face of every notion of reality in the modern world. And you have the gaul to tell me I don't have a grip on reality. I can simply say "I'm a fish-head pig-cow-cantaloupe", and suddenly I am!

If this isn't what you intended, perhaps you should think more carefully before you speak.

You can't call someone a nigger and not deal with the social ramifications of having done that. That's because the black person is going to perceive that as an insult, despite your intent to call him purple.

Whether he perceives it as an insult or not, has no bearing on whether or not it WAS an insult. People can perceve things incorrectly.

We haven't been chanting, or chattering, "I want it, so I should get it".

Oh no?

Tell me why the last 20 pages then are littered with the same argument then. "I want bathrooms this way, I'm in the majority, city planners should care about what the majority want, so we should get our way." That's the argument that has been tossed around for a great deal of time now, and it's the argument you just posted again at the top of your post.

Tell me again how that's not chattering "I want it, so I should get it".

We've been providing you with very real, verified, socially and scientifically proven facts.

1) Bullshit. I've seen no links to anything. Just your own words.
2) Your "facts" have no logical merit, as again, just because someone wants something, doesn't mean they should get it. And It doesn't make it logically or morally justified. And just because there are people, with the goal of pleasing the majority, again, does not make this logical and moral. You are assuming it is, on no basis.

...your entire worldview seems to be, "I'm right, you're wrong."

Pot, meet kettle.