Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Snafturi]

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?

Primarily, I'm for leaving things as is on current buildings because I don't see the cost of changing things to be justified in most cases. So this would all be related to new buildings/massive renovations already being undertaken for other reasons on current buildings.

As for why gendered as the default, I don't really see that unisex will solve all that many problems. People that have issues with trans* folks will have issues with trans* folks regardless of what the bathroom facilities are. Having no wall between you and the gender than is more likely to harass you (if that's a problem for you) is going to feel (and possibly be) safer with gendered facilites.

Also, I think in most places people with kids or are caregivers for someone of the opposite gender, there's generally few problems. I say this as someone who has lots of experience taking care of children.

Of course, there are parts of the world, societies and specific places where one will be significantly beneficial over the other. For example, if someone lives in a place where people are strange and take issue with parents bringing their kids into the opposite restroom (or going into the opposite restroom with them), unisex would be a better option. On the other hand, unisex bathrooms in the military (when I was in at least) would be severely problematic. There was more than enough problems with sexual harassment/stuff that goes beyond sexual harassment, and having unisex bathroom would have made things even worse.

[Aurora Novus]

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.

I disagree, it is entirely logical to not do so. What part of them being religious interferes with their ability to act in the best interest of a secular society?

You're making an unfounded assumption.

[Linux and the X]

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.

When the argument is "this is what I prefer" (which yours is), then yes, actually being affected by an issue is relevant to your argument being meaningful.

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.

No it shouldn't.

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.

This is irrelevant.

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.

How is it enforced upon you?

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

Argumentum ad populem.

And?

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

It's more "we're not bothering to strictly scrutinise your logic because it's completely irrelevant and ignores real-world concerns", but that doesn't make you sound superior, I suppose.

[Aurora Novus]

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.



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

Because rape.

That's not specific enough. Rape is a crime that occurs to all sexes, by all sexes. Rapists can be of the same sex.

Elaborate.

[Aurora Novus]

When the argument is "this is what I prefer" (which yours is), then yes, actually being affected by an issue is relevant to your argument being meaningful.

1) That's not my argument. My argument is "As segregated locker rooms are restrictive, they require justification. If there is not sound justification for them, to force people to abide by this segregation is an injustice."

2) No, it doesn't. Again, there is no inherent logical connection between having a sound answer to a problem, and being personally involved in the problem. You do not need to be a part of a problem to be able to pose a rational, logical solution to it.

No it shouldn't.

The opposite of logic is irrationality. why should our decisions be based on anything irrational, ever? How does that help create the best possible society? That stifles intellectualism, not endorses it.

This is irrelevant.

No, it's not. Society should be pursing what is logical. This is a debate. Logic is what rules here. Things need to be logically justified.

Simply saying "the majority gest what it wants" is not a logical justification, ans is a logical fallacy.

How is it enforced upon you?

In having one particular bodily sex, I cannot go into the room of one who does not share my body.

Argumentum ad populem.

And?

It's a logical fallacy. It means you've made an error in your reasoning. Your proposition is flawed. Therefore discredited.

It's more "we're not bothering to strictly scrutinise your logic because it's completely irrelevant and ignores real-world concerns", but that doesn't make you sound superior, I suppose.

It's not completely irrelevant, as Logic is always relevant, anytime anyone makes a claim about anything.

[Linux and the X]

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?

What they want causes harm. What you want does not.

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.[/quote]
Yes, logic is necessary. However, cold logic, that does not take into account how people feel about things, is not only unnecessary but irrelevant.

Primarily, I'm for leaving things as is on current buildings because I don't see the cost of changing things to be justified in most cases. So this would all be related to new buildings/massive renovations already being undertaken for other reasons on current buildings.

The cost of changing things is taking down the gender signs and (in some instances) replacing them with "bathroom" signs, for those who need to label the rooms and don't already have that sign over the space between the doors. It's not really a significant expense.

As for why gendered as the default, I don't really see that unisex will solve all that many problems. People that have issues with trans* folks will have issues with trans* folks regardless of what the bathroom facilities are. Having no wall between you and the gender than is more likely to harass you (if that's a problem for you) is going to feel (and possibly be) safer with gendered facilites.

Most harassment of trans* people in gendered bathrooms is based on being in the "wrong" bathroom. There is some harassment purely for being trans*, of course, since such harassment happens everywhere. By having gendered bathrooms, some people don't have a "right" bathroom and are forced to use the "wrong" bathroom or none at all.

[Aurora Novus]

What they want causes harm. What you want does not.

Yes, harm figures into it. And that's my point. Simply saying "It's my personal preference" or "it's the preference of the majority" doesn't get us anywhere. It is literally a meaningless statement. A tautology. That fact that you're arguing for that side already shows it's your personal preference. What they are basically saying is "It's my personal preference, because it's my personal preference, therefore, we should go with it." It's a nonsense argument.

Yes, logic is necessary. However, cold logic, that does not take into account how people feel about things, is not only unnecessary but irrelevant.

I agree, but there is a difference between dismissing the feelings of others, and not taking them into account. Emotional appeals are no always relevant, or meaningful. And they always have to have some form of suplemental reason, because simply saying "I feel this way" doesn't tell us why or why not we should care or support you.

[Fewmist]

Thinking about this logically, it does strike me as a little weird that I haven't seen even the smallest bit of proof that society would be better if we ignored gender. In fact, it seems more like it would be harmful to tell people who have fought to be recognized as a certain gender "Ha ha, it doesn't matter anyway!" I mean, most people aren't agender. Most people do identify with a gender. Acting like they're in the wrong for doing so seems more likely to be harmful than helpful.

[Linux and the X]

When the argument is "this is what I prefer" (which yours is), then yes, actually being affected by an issue is relevant to your argument being meaningful.

1) That's not my argument. My argument is "As segregated locker rooms are restrictive, they require justification. If there is not sound justification for them, to force people to abide by this segregation is an injustice."

And the justification is that it is what almost everyone prefers, and does not cause harm.

2) No, it doesn't. Again, there is no inherent logical connection between having a sound answer to a problem, and being personally involved in the problem. You do not need to be a part of a problem to be able to pose a rational, logical solution to it.

Those affected by a problem are the people who are best able to determine how to eliminate the problem. Outsiders are, of course, able to make observations and suggestions, but cannot be as fully familiar with the issue as those affected, and therefore do not get to decide anything.

The opposite of logic is irrationality. why should our decisions be based on anything irrational, ever? How does that help create the best possible society? That stifles intellectualism, not endorses it.

Here, you are, to some extent, correct. Irrationality is not a good basis for decision-making. I should not have allowed your cold subset of logic ignorant of reality to define logic as a whole.

How is it enforced upon you?

In having one particular bodily sex, I cannot go into the room of one who does not share my body.

And? Should categories of people not be permitted to have space to themselves?

And?

It's a logical fallacy. It means you've made an error in your reasoning. Your proposition is flawed. Therefore discredited.

A fallacious ad populum claims that a fact is true solely because the majority say it is true. You have either misanalysed the argument or have a flawed understanding of informal fallacies.

It's more "we're not bothering to strictly scrutinise your logic because it's completely irrelevant and ignores real-world concerns", but that doesn't make you sound superior, I suppose.

It's not completely irrelevant, as Logic is always relevant, anytime anyone makes a claim about anything.

Your logic is irrelevant.

[Aurora Novus]

Thinking about this logically, it does strike me as a little weird that I haven't seen even the smallest bit of proof that society would be better if we ignored gender. In fact, it seems more like it would be harmful to tell people who have fought to be recognized as a certain gender "Ha ha, it doesn't matter anyway!" I mean, most people aren't agender. Most people do identify with a gender. Acting like they're in the wrong for doing so seems more likely to be harmful than helpful.

It's not so much the gender identity part of it (which I do find fallacious, but not necessarily harmful) that is an issue, it's the subsequent dividing ourselves up into separate groups, and estrangement from one another, that's harmful.

Obviously, as a white individual, I look at someone who is black and don't think "Hey, they're white too!" But what people mean by saying "colourblind", is that I don't think of him as a different group. We're both human beings. We live on the same planet, within the same society (assumably). We;re not exactly the same to a T, but we're the same, as a general principle.

This is what I mean by society would be better off if we ignored gender. Obviously men and women are different to a degree. Different sets of genitalia, different functions in reproduction, different body types, ect. But, as a fundamental rule, they aren't different. They're human beings, who can possess any number of behavior and personality traits. Their bodies, and their gender, don't make them part of some "separate group" no more than being taller or heavier than someone does.

If we stop thinking of one another as different, and start thinking of one another as similar, and desegregate our way of thinking about people, we will inevitably undo harms against one another, on the basis of bigotry or hate, as we will no longer think of people as "others" or "different" or belonging to a "separate group".

[Linux and the X]

Thinking about this logically, it does strike me as a little weird that I haven't seen even the smallest bit of proof that society would be better if we ignored gender. In fact, it seems more like it would be harmful to tell people who have fought to be recognized as a certain gender "Ha ha, it doesn't matter anyway!" I mean, most people aren't agender. Most people do identify with a gender. Acting like they're in the wrong for doing so seems more likely to be harmful than helpful.

It's not so much the gender identity part of it (which I do find fallacious, but not necessarily harmful) that is an issue, it's the subsequent dividing ourselves up into separate groups, and estrangement from one another, that's harmful.

Obviously, as a white individual, I look at someone who is black and don't think "Hey, they're white too!" But what people mean by saying "colourblind", is that I don't think of him as a different group. We're both human beings. We live on the same planet, within the same society (assumably). We;re not exactly the same to a T, but we're the same, as a general principle.

This is what I mean by society would be better off if we ignored gender. Obviously men and women are different to a degree. Different sets of genitalia, different functions in reproduction, different body types, ect. But, as a fundamental rule, they aren't different. They're human beings, who can possess any number of behavior and personality traits. Their bodies, and their gender, don't make them part of some "separate group" no more than being taller or heavier than someone does.

If we stop thinking of one another as different, and start thinking of one another as similar, and desegregate our way of thinking about people, we will inevitably undo harms against one another, on the basis of bigotry or hate, as we will no longer think of people as "others" or "different" or belonging to a "separate group".

Yes, let's all hold hands around the campfire and sing kum-by-ah and pretend that historical oppression never happened and certainly doesn't have any effect today.

[The Steel Magnolia]

It's not so much the gender identity part of it (which I do find fallacious, but not necessarily harmful) that is an issue, it's the subsequent dividing ourselves up into separate groups, and estrangement from one another, that's harmful.

Obviously, as a white individual, I look at someone who is black and don't think "Hey, they're white too!" But what people mean by saying "colourblind", is that I don't think of him as a different group. We're both human beings. We live on the same planet, within the same society (assumably). We;re not exactly the same to a T, but we're the same, as a general principle.

This is what I mean by society would be better off if we ignored gender. Obviously men and women are different to a degree. Different sets of genitalia, different functions in reproduction, different body types, ect. But, as a fundamental rule, they aren't different. They're human beings, who can possess any number of behavior and personality traits. Their bodies, and their gender, don't make them part of some "separate group" no more than being taller or heavier than someone does.

If we stop thinking of one another as different, and start thinking of one another as similar, and desegregate our way of thinking about people, we will inevitably undo harms against one another, on the basis of bigotry or hate, as we will no longer think of people as "others" or "different" or belonging to a "separate group".

That'd be great and wonderful if actually true.

You don't achieve the destruction of hate and bigotry by pretending that social groups don't exist, or working towards that end.

[Snafturi]

The cost of changing things is taking down the gender signs and (in some instances) replacing them with "bathroom" signs, for those who need to label the rooms and don't already have that sign over the space between the doors. It's not really a significant expense.

If that's all you're talking about, I don't see that as feasible in a lot of cases or accomplishing much. Bathrooms with the urinals not placed to give sufficient privacy are just going to become awkward for everyone. The bathroom with the urinals will most likely become the unoffical male bathroom anyway. I've been in places with absolutely no sinage up, and yet you could still walk into bathroom A and see only men, while bathroom B had only women and most people were confused by their first trip to the toilet.

Most harassment of trans* people in gendered bathrooms is based on being in the "wrong" bathroom. There is some harassment purely for being trans*, of course, since such harassment happens everywhere. By having gendered bathrooms, some people don't have a "right" bathroom and are forced to use the "wrong" bathroom or none at all.

Which is the point of view I entered this thread with. I've read compelling arguments from trans* people on why they might feel differently, and I think we're stuck with anecdotes until someone does some research on the topic. This could change dramatically depending on where someone lives too. I do think we'd have to rely on feedback from the trans* community in any given area.

As I said before, the military (when I was in at least), would be a bad place for unisex bathrooms too. You couldn't even count on your own barracks being safe spaces. The bathrooms, generally speaking, were. Not always, sadly.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because rape.

That's not specific enough. Rape is a crime that occurs to all sexes, by all sexes. Rapists can be of the same sex.

Elaborate.

How in the hell is that not specific enough?

See, rape happens. It exists. It's a thing.

Multi-gendered constructs are we. Stick our dicks in things we ought not, do we.

Segregated bathrooms make people who fear the potential for the big hairy dude who walks in and leers at every single female in the room feel a little safer. Because that polar bear isn't in there with them.

For someone who espouses logic, you show an alarming lack of it.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The cost of changing things is taking down the gender signs and (in some instances) replacing them with "bathroom" signs, for those who need to label the rooms and don't already have that sign over the space between the doors. It's not really a significant expense.

If that's all you're talking about, I don't see that as feasible in a lot of cases or accomplishing much. Bathrooms with the urinals not placed to give sufficient privacy are just going to become awkward for everyone. The bathroom with the urinals will most likely become the unoffical male bathroom anyway. I've been in places with absolutely no sinage up, and yet you could still walk into bathroom A and see only men, while bathroom B had only women and most people were confused by their first trip to the toilet.

Most harassment of trans* people in gendered bathrooms is based on being in the "wrong" bathroom. There is some harassment purely for being trans*, of course, since such harassment happens everywhere. By having gendered bathrooms, some people don't have a "right" bathroom and are forced to use the "wrong" bathroom or none at all.

Which is the point of view I entered this thread with. I've read compelling arguments from trans* people on why they might feel differently, and I think we're stuck with anecdotes until someone does some research on the topic. This could change dramatically depending on where someone lives too. I do think we'd have to rely on feedback from the trans* community in any given area.

As I said before, the military (when I was in at least), would be a bad place for unisex bathrooms. You couldn't even count on your own barracks being safe spaces. The bathrooms, generally speaking, were. Not always, sadly.

BWA HA HA HA HA....

Sorry, I just imagined unisex barracks bathrooms. Oh god, the IG complaints would shatter the heavens.

[Aurora Novus]

And the justification is that it is what almost everyone prefers, and does not cause harm.

Which is false. All restrictions are inherently harmful.

Those affected by a problem are the people who are best able to determine how to eliminate the problem.

No, this is not necessarily true either. This is why people go to seek counseling. Or mediators when in conflict with someone. Outside sources are often more accurate, and able to better help someone, or bring about a better conclusion. Being involved doesn't intrinsically make you better. There is no logical connection.

Outsiders are, of course, able to make observations and suggestions, but cannot be as fully familiar with the issue as those affected, and therefore do not get to decide anything.

So we should eliminate all counselors and mediators, lawyers, and other positions, which directly deal with people going to outside sources for help? The man at home, depressed, will always be able to make a better, more informed judgment on his situation? Bologna.

And? Should categories of people not be permitted to have space to themselves?

Not necessarily, no. No if you are categorizing them by something which is arbitrary, like physical appearance (i.e., hiehgt, weight, race, ect.). No, people should not be separated by penis and vagina.

A fallacious ad populum claims that a fact is true solely because the majority say it is true. You have either misanalysed the argument or have a flawed understanding of informal fallacies.

Ad populems are also used to justify a belief or action, simply because the majority wills it.

It's not just about factual claims, it's about moral judgments as well.

Your logic is irrelevant.

Logic isn't subjective, and this isn't my logic. It's simply logic.

And it is most certainly not irrelevant. Just because the majority wants it, doesn't justify them getting it, especially if what they are advocating for is a harm. All restriction are inherently harmful, by virtue of taking freedoms away. Therefore, they must be preventing some form of greater harm in order to be justified. The harm of "not having my wants met" does not suffice in of itself, as again, I will suffer the same harm if I do not get my way.

There must be other factors presented. Moral factors, safety factors, efficiency factors, really, anything. Just present something other than "It's what I want" or "It's what the majority wants". Because that simply does not suffice as sound reasoning.

[Snafturi]

BWA HA HA HA HA....

Sorry, I just imagined unisex barracks bathrooms. Oh god, the IG complaints would shatter the heavens.

Oh indeed. Yeah, no. On many, many levels this would be the worst idea ever.

[Aurora Novus]

Yes, let's all hold hands around the campfire and sing kum-by-ah and pretend that historical oppression never happened and certainly doesn't have any effect today.

Human behavior does not change reality. Just because people have been treated as if they were part of a sparate group, does not actually make them part of a separate group, nor does it justify treating them like a separate group as a means to solve their issues.

[The Emerald Dawn]

BWA HA HA HA HA....

Sorry, I just imagined unisex barracks bathrooms. Oh god, the IG complaints would shatter the heavens.

Oh indeed. Yeah, no. On many, many levels this would be the worst idea ever.

It was bad enough in the field with everyone using the sump dump.

"Sound off"
"Female present"
"Roger that. I'll just take two stalls down."
"Thanks!"

[Aurora Novus]

That's not specific enough. Rape is a crime that occurs to all sexes, by all sexes. Rapists can be of the same sex.

Elaborate.

How in the hell is that not specific enough?

See, rape happens. It exists. It's a thing.

Alright.

And this justifies segregating the genders...how?

Multi-gendered constructs are we. Stick our dicks in things we ought not, do we.

Segregated bathrooms make people who fear the potential for the big hairy dude who walks in and leers at every single female in the room feel a little safer. Because that polar bear isn't in there with them.

Being big or hairy doesn't make one a rapist. And as we've been over this topic before, rapists obviously don't respect the signs now as it is. Whereas in a unisex room, the number of potential people in the room at any given time would dramatically increase. Reducing the likelihood someone would attempt to commit a crime there.

For someone who espouses logic, you show an alarming lack of it.

Being a man =/= rapist. Sorry, it doesn't, despite your sexist claims.

[Linux and the X]

The cost of changing things is taking down the gender signs and (in some instances) replacing them with "bathroom" signs, for those who need to label the rooms and don't already have that sign over the space between the doors. It's not really a significant expense.

If that's all you're talking about, I don't see that as feasible in a lot of cases or accomplishing much. Bathrooms with the urinals not placed to give sufficient privacy are just going to become awkward for everyone. The bathroom with the urinals will most likely become the unoffical male bathroom anyway. I've been in places with absolutely no sinage up, and yet you could still walk into bathroom A and see only men, while bathroom B had only women and most people were confused by their first trip to the toilet.

Most harassment of trans* people in gendered bathrooms is based on being in the "wrong" bathroom. There is some harassment purely for being trans*, of course, since such harassment happens everywhere. By having gendered bathrooms, some people don't have a "right" bathroom and are forced to use the "wrong" bathroom or none at all.

Which is the point of view I entered this thread with. I've read compelling arguments from trans* people on why they might feel differently, and I think we're stuck with anecdotes until someone does some research on the topic. This could change dramatically depending on where someone lives too. I do think we'd have to rely on feedback from the trans* community in any given area.

As I said before, the military (when I was in at least), would be a bad place for unisex bathrooms. You couldn't even count on your own barracks being safe spaces. The bathrooms, generally speaking, were. Not always, sadly.

Most people would continue to make bathrooms gendered, sure (which is another reason making all bathrooms unisex is ridiculous, incidentally), true. But it would no longer be possible to be in the 'wrong' bathroom. This would help both binary trans* people (who would be at lower risk for harassment) and non-binary trans* people, who would not have to be in the (actually) wrong bathroom.[Tab=][/Tab]

[The Emerald Dawn]

How in the hell is that not specific enough?

See, rape happens. It exists. It's a thing.

Alright.

And this justifies segregating the genders...how?

Multi-gendered constructs are we. Stick our dicks in things we ought not, do we.

Segregated bathrooms make people who fear the potential for the big hairy dude who walks in and leers at every single female in the room feel a little safer. Because that polar bear isn't in there with them.

Being big or hairy doesn't make one a rapist. And as we've been over this topic before, rapists obviously don't respect the signs now as it is. Whereas in a unisex room, the number of potential people in the room at any given time would dramatically increase. Reducing the likelihood someone would attempt to commit a crime there.

For someone who espouses logic, you show an alarming lack of it.

Being a man =/= rapist. Sorry, it doesn't, despite your sexist claims.

Oh holy mother of fuck.

0 <----- The point














x <-------------- Your head.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Most harassment of trans* people in gendered bathrooms is based on being in the "wrong" bathroom. There is some harassment purely for being trans*, of course, since such harassment happens everywhere. By having gendered bathrooms, some people don't have a "right" bathroom and are forced to use the "wrong" bathroom or none at all.

Which is the point of view I entered this thread with. I've read compelling arguments from trans* people on why they might feel differently, and I think we're stuck with anecdotes until someone does some research on the topic. This could change dramatically depending on where someone lives too. I do think we'd have to rely on feedback from the trans* community in any given area.

I'm a binary identified trans woman who passes... all the time really, unless I'm sleeping with someone. So I can't really comment too much on the issue, but what I will say is that having unisex bathrooms in addition seems like it'd make everyone happy.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Yes, let's all hold hands around the campfire and sing kum-by-ah and pretend that historical oppression never happened and certainly doesn't have any effect today.

Human behavior does not change reality. Just because people have been treated as if they were part of a sparate group, does not actually make them part of a separate group, nor does it justify treating them like a separate group as a means to solve their issues.

Pfahahahahahaa. No.


E: I also literally just realized you sound exactly like those white saviour people!

"I'm going to do this FOR you even though you don't want me to! Because I know better!"

[Linux and the X]

Those affected by a problem are the people who are best able to determine how to eliminate the problem.

No, this is not necessarily true either. This is why people go to seek counseling. Or mediators when in conflict with someone. Outside sources are often more accurate, and able to better help someone, or bring about a better conclusion. Being involved doesn't intrinsically make you better. There is no logical connection.

Outsiders are, of course, able to make observations and suggestions, but cannot be as fully familiar with the issue as those affected, and therefore do not get to decide anything.

So we should eliminate all counselors and mediators, lawyers, and other positions, which directly deal with people going to outside sources for help? The man at home, depressed, will always be able to make a better, more informed judgment on his situation? Bologna.

Oh, okay, sorry. I thought you would be able to figure out that, since we're talking about social issues here, I was referring to social issues. I'll also clarify that "social" here refers to "society", not "socialising". Kindly re-read with this in mind.

And? Should categories of people not be permitted to have space to themselves?

Not necessarily, no. No if you are categorizing them by something which is arbitrary, like physical appearance (i.e., hiehgt, weight, race, ect.). No, people should not be separated by penis and vagina.

Yes, and? Show where someone has suggested that.

A fallacious ad populum claims that a fact is true solely because the majority say it is true. You have either misanalysed the argument or have a flawed understanding of informal fallacies.

Ad populems are also used to justify a belief or action, simply because the majority wills it.

It's not just about factual claims, it's about moral judgments as well.

Yeah, that's not a fallacy, that's the basic fucking idea of democracy.

Your logic is irrelevant.

Logic isn't subjective, and this isn't my logic. It's simply logic.

Again, you fail to understand how people communicate. I am clearly not referring to logic as a field, but to your arguments, construction, and those you are willing to consider.

The harm of "not having my wants met" does not suffice in of itself, as again, I will suffer the same harm if I do not get my way.

People who want gendered bathrooms can have them. People who want gender-neutral bathrooms can have them. What you want is for other people to not have what they want.

There must be other factors presented. Moral factors, safety factors, efficiency factors, really, anything. Just present something other than "It's what I want" or "It's what the majority wants". Because that simply does not suffice as sound reasoning.

You continue to insist on a false premise.