Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[The Emerald Dawn]

"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.

Yes, I have the gall to tell you about desegregation.

I honestly feel part of me has died having to actually link that shit to you.

[Aurora Novus]

Yes, I have the gall to tell you about desegregation.

I honestly feel part of me has died having to actually link that shit to you.

I feel the same, wondering why the hell you linked it to me. What relevance does this have at all? Is this your frail attempt at proposing personal preference as a sound basis of reasoning? Because, again, it's not. Sure, it was people's personal preference that they not be discriminated against, but it was also people's personal preference that segregation continue. What ended it was the stronger arguments of the anti-segregation side, which had more weight to them other than "We want this, so give it to us".

But then again, you should know this, because I explained this concept in the post you quoted

Now, are you going to stop driving your intellectual credibility further into the dirt, or are you going to actually start discussing my points?

Oh wait. Let me guess.

"Your points are so disconnected from reality, they aren't worth discussing."

[The Emerald Dawn]

Yes, I have the gall to tell you about desegregation.

I honestly feel part of me has died having to actually link that shit to you.

I feel the same, wondering why the hell you linked it to me. What relevance does this have at all? Is this your frail attempt at proposing personal preference as a sound basis of reasoning? Because, again, it's not. Sure, it was people's personal preference that they not be discriminated against, but it was also people's personal preference that segregation continue. What ended it was the stronger arguments of the anti-segregation side, which had more weight to them other than "We want this, so give it to us".

But then again, you should know this, because I explained this concept in the post you quoted

Now, are you going to stop driving your intellectual credibility further into the dirt, or are you going to actually start discussing my points?

Oh wait. Let me guess.

"Your points are so disconnected from reality, they aren't worth discussing."

No, I'm going to say that it is well that people who hold your opinions never remain politicians for long.

[Ethel mermania]

but it is. if you do it you go to jail.

Not necessarily. If they press harassment charges you go to jail. Walking into the wrong locker room is however, not a crime.

*edit* oops

that is the case in most criminal complaints, someone has to press charges.

whether the charges are pressed or not its a criminal act.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Not necessarily. If they press harassment charges you go to jail. Walking into the wrong locker room is however, not a crime.

*edit* oops

that is the case in most criminal complaints, someone has to press charges.

whether the charges are pressed or not its a criminal act.

Breakin' the law, breakin' the law.

[Coccygia]

NO WAY! "Barmy political correctness" is right.

[Ethel mermania]

that is the case in most criminal complaints, someone has to press charges.

whether the charges are pressed or not its a criminal act.

Breakin' the law, breakin' the law.

did i miss your reponse to my santa claus batllion bit, or did you ignore it? i thougt it was a great set up for you.

(damm job made me work)

[The Emerald Dawn]

Breakin' the law, breakin' the law.

did i miss your reponse to my santa claus batllion bit, or did you ignore it? i thougt it was a great set up for you.

(damm job made me work)

how many battalions does santa claus have?

Seven.

Two in reserve, five for normal battlefield operations.

He has nine functional air wings. Two tanker wings, three escort wings, two airlift, and two combat.

His maritime forces are a little low, the Frosty Wars really took a bite out of his navies.

[Ethel mermania]

did i miss your reponse to my santa claus batllion bit, or did you ignore it? i thougt it was a great set up for you.

(damm job made me work)

Seven.

Two in reserve, five for normal battlefield operations.

He has nine functional air wings. Two tanker wings, three escort wings, two airlift, and two combat.

His maritime forces are a little low, the Frosty Wars really took a bite out of his navies.

well done soldier.

[Aurora Novus]

No, I'm going to say that it is well that people who hold your opinions never remain politicians for long.

I know this.

Then again, politics is a corrupt game of power, not about actual justice and logic.

In any case, once again, you post a response lacking in anything substantial what so ever.


So I take it then you don't have an argument that is not rooted in personal taste?

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, I'm going to say that it is well that people who hold your opinions never remain politicians for long.

I know this.

Then again, politics is a corrupt game of power, not about actual justice and logic.

In any case, once again, you post a response lacking in anything substantial what so ever.


So I take it then you don't have an argument that is not rooted in personal taste?

There isn't a need for one.

[Linux and the X]

"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.

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.

It is quite relevant, because those who are not affected by the issue are, by definition, non-stakeholders and their opinions therefore have an advisory role only. However, since you are apparently affected by the issue, your thoughts are actually relevant.

The problem, though, is that you're trying to legislate by logic exclusively. That's not how things work, though. The majority gets what it wants so long as that does not harm the rights of the minority. Having separate bathrooms does not harm anyone, and the majority wants them, so they are kept.

[Snafturi]

Seems like the only option is to get rid of all public restrooms. Keeping them would be statist. This is the only way justice, truth and equality can survive in our delicate society. WE MUST END THIS TYRANNY NOW!!!! Stand with me and you stand against racism, sexism, misandry, the bourgeois, and trans fats! Obama lies! We did built built it! Also, Hitler.

On a serious note, I started reading this thread mostly "meh" but leaning towards "we need more unisex bathrooms". I live in a place where there's plenty of both styles, and I saw the unisex ones as being slightly better for parents and trans* folks. After reading through this thread, however, I realise I'm now for keeping the gendered bathrooms and adding a unisex option where space allows.

Ultimately, it ends up not being that big of a deal because men generally stick to the side with the urinals on them and women to the other. So whether there's a wall up or not isn't going to affect the majority of the users. But, for those who do feel the need for privacy, that wall is actually useful.

[Linux and the X]

After reading through this thread, however, I realise I'm now for keeping the gendered bathrooms and adding a unisex option where space allows.

Why not have unisex bathrooms everywhere but with a gendered option where space allows?

[Aurora Novus]

I know this.

Then again, politics is a corrupt game of power, not about actual justice and logic.

In any case, once again, you post a response lacking in anything substantial what so ever.


So I take it then you don't have an argument that is not rooted in personal taste?

There isn't a need for one.

There is indeed, as I pointed out, and as, ironically, your own link to desegregation proves.

Look, you want segregated rooms.

I don't want segregated rooms.

We both have a personal taste. How do we determine whose taste should be applied? Us simply saying "I want it, I should get it" gets us nowhere. It doesn't make one side or the other stronger in any way.

So, yes, you need to provide some kind of argument outside of personal taste, as there is a veyr big need of one. You don't just get to have your way, because you want it that way.

[The Emerald Dawn]

There isn't a need for one.

There is indeed, as I pointed out, and as, ironically, your own link to desegregation proves.

Look, you want segregated rooms.

I don't want segregated rooms.

We both have a personal taste. How do we determine whose taste should be applied? Us simply saying "I want it, I should get it" gets us nowhere. It doesn't make one side or the other stronger in any way.

So, yes, you need to provide some kind of argument outside of personal taste, as there is a veyr big need of one. You don't just get to have your way, because you want it that way.

Except segregation has, time and again, proven necessary when sex is involved.

You may have not noticed in the link I provided, but people aren't exactly clamoring for co-ed locker rooms. Colleges aren't hustling to shove women and men into the same showers.

[Linux and the X]

There isn't a need for one.

There is indeed, as I pointed out, and as, ironically, your own link to desegregation proves.

Look, you want segregated rooms.

I don't want segregated rooms.

We both have a personal taste. How do we determine whose taste should be applied? Us simply saying "I want it, I should get it" gets us nowhere. It doesn't make one side or the other stronger in any way.

So, yes, you need to provide some kind of argument outside of personal taste, as there is a veyr big need of one. You don't just get to have your way, because you want it that way.

People who want separate rooms can have separate rooms. Those who want unisex rooms can have unisex rooms. Everyone gets what they want.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I'm really just not seeing how personal taste isn't legitimate.

And I really want to know where your logic fetish comes from.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm really just not seeing how personal taste isn't legitimate.

And I really want to know where your logic fetish comes from.

I have been advised by my legal counsel not to comment on that.

[Aurora Novus]

It is quite relevant, because those who are not affected by the issue are, by definition, non-stakeholders and their opinions therefore have an advisory role only. However, since you are apparently affected by the issue, your thoughts are actually relevant.

Wrong.

Just because someone is not a stakeholder, does not mean their arguments are invalid. If a cisgendered person and myself, as an agendered person, both made the same argument, mine would not be more valid simply because I am cisgendere. We would have made the exact same argument.

Logic doesn't bend for your personal bias and bigotry. Status means nothing. Only the arguments made.

The problem, though, is that you're trying to legislate by logic exclusively. That's not how things work, though.

It may not be how things work, but it should be.

The majority gets what it wants so long as that does not harm the rights of the minority.

Which is not necessarily logical in all cases.

Having separate bathrooms does not harm anyone

False. Any restriction is, by virtue of restricting freedoms, a harm. therefore, all restrictions must be justified.

The lack of justification of a restriction, and therefore, it's enforcement upon me, is harming me. And I am raising a complaint about it.

, and the majority wants them, so they are kept.

Argumentum ad populem.

Honestly, it's sad that at this point your only argument is "You may be right, logically speaking, but we don't care."

[Aurora Novus]

Except segregation has, time and again, proven necessary when sex is involved.

Never. Give me one time it is absolutely "necessary", and not based on some arbitrary bias or assumption against someone, based on their genitalia. Examples that deal with situations specific to one sex do not count. No "tampons are only marketed to women", or such nonsense. give me an example where two sexes are perfectly capable or sharing the same facilities, or engaging in an activity together, ect., but it is necessary oo keep them separate.

You may have not noticed in the link I provided, but people aren't exactly clamoring for co-ed locker rooms. Colleges aren't hustling to shove women and men into the same showers.

Again what people are doing has no bearing on what they should do.

[Aurora Novus]

People who want separate rooms can have separate rooms. Those who want unisex rooms can have unisex rooms. Everyone gets what they want.

No, they don't, as people who wish to enter particular rooms which are labeled "male only" or "female only", when they are of the opposite sex, cannot do so.

[The Emerald Dawn]

It is quite relevant, because those who are not affected by the issue are, by definition, non-stakeholders and their opinions therefore have an advisory role only. However, since you are apparently affected by the issue, your thoughts are actually relevant.

Wrong.

Just because someone is not a stakeholder, does not mean their arguments are invalid. If a cisgendered person and myself, as an agendered person, both made the same argument, mine would not be more valid simply because I am cisgendere. We would have made the exact same argument.

Logic doesn't bend for your personal bias and bigotry. Status means nothing. Only the arguments made.

The problem, though, is that you're trying to legislate by logic exclusively. That's not how things work, though.

It may not be how things work, but it should be.

The majority gets what it wants so long as that does not harm the rights of the minority.

Which is not necessarily logical in all cases.

Having separate bathrooms does not harm anyone

False. Any restriction is, by virtue of restricting freedoms, a harm. therefore, all restrictions must be justified.

The lack of justification of a restriction, and therefore, it's enforcement upon me, is harming me. And I am raising a complaint about it.

, and the majority wants them, so they are kept.

Argumentum ad populem.

Honestly, it's sad that at this point your only argument is "You may be right, logically speaking, but we don't care."

Sniff this. It is, completely logical to jettison every single religious person from congress. Why? Because they can not be trusted to act in the best interests of a secular society.

Strangely, we don't do this.

It's illogical, but it is.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Except segregation has, time and again, proven necessary when sex is involved.

Never. Give me one time it is absolutely "necessary", and not based on some arbitrary bias or assumption against someone, based on their genitalia. Examples that deal with situations specific to one sex do not count. No "tampons are only marketed to women", or such nonsense. give me an example where two sexes are perfectly capable or sharing the same facilities, or engaging in an activity together, ect., but it is necessary oo keep them separate.

You may have not noticed in the link I provided, but people aren't exactly clamoring for co-ed locker rooms. Colleges aren't hustling to shove women and men into the same showers.

Again what people are doing has no bearing on what they should do.

Because rape.

[Aurora Novus]

I'm really just not seeing how personal taste isn't legitimate.

Because it proves nothing, solves nothing, and supports nothing.

Let's take an extreme example. Say someone wants to murder me. Obviously it's their personal desire to kill me, and it's my personal desire to live.

What determines which outcome is the most just, moral outcome?

Obviously personal taste itself is not enough, because all it leads to is a shouting match back and forth of "I want this!" "Well I want this!" And so on, and so forth.

Simply put, personal taste is not substantial enough on it's own. It necessarily must be connected to greater things, in order to justify acting on it. On it's own, it's meaningless.

And I really want to know where your logic fetish comes from.

Because Logic is an objective system of argumentation. Or truth discovery. It's like the scientific method to science. It provides the best, most accurate route, to coming to a conclusion in a debate.

I can't believe I'm having to justify the usage of logic in a debate. As if that wasn't obvious.