Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[YellowApple]

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.

How can hate and bigotry exist to begin with if social groups don't exist?

[Linux and the X]

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.

How can hate and bigotry exist to begin with if social groups don't exist?

Social groups do exist, and there are obvious differences between them.

[Snafturi]

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!"

As bad as that was, I have it on good authority that it was even worse in the Norwegian military.

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]

Which would be why I'm above all for listening to the people who would be most affected by it. I can think of clear instances where one would be preferable above the other for various reasons, and there's probably other times I'm not thinking about because I'm not aware of how this affects X group in Y instance. I also see logic in that reasoning.

I just have a feeling in places where trans* folks are getting harassed for using the "wrong" bathroom, they probably will still have problems in unisex bathrooms. Anyone willing to cross that line is going to cross it.

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.

I think that's the best solution.

A question for you, though. If there was only space for one, which do you think should take priority?

[The Emerald Dawn]

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!"

As bad as that was, I have it on good authority that it was even worse in the Norwegian military.

BWA HA. How the hell did they burn that shit out?

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

How can hate and bigotry exist to begin with if social groups don't exist?[/quote]

Because even though /you/ may not think that social groups exist, everyone else does! And like it or not, perception does actually equal reality, at least in this case.

So no. If lawmakers decide to ignore the existence of social groups in policy making that's a great injustice because there are groups that are actually oppressed to this day, and to pretend that discrimination against that social group doesn't happen towards that social group because you reject social groups as a whole means you can't target any solutions properly.

Treat people equally. Their problems? Less so.

[Snafturi]

As bad as that was, I have it on good authority that it was even worse in the Norwegian military.

(Image)

BWA HA. How the hell did they burn that shit out?

Apparently, they left it there until spring (or in this case, probably summer). Then they let it thaw.

Barbaric, isn't it?

[New England and The Maritimes]

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.

How can hate and bigotry exist to begin with if social groups don't exist?

Because even though /you/ may not think that social groups exist, everyone else does! And like it or not, perception does actually equal reality, at least in this case.

So no. If lawmakers decide to ignore the existence of social groups in policy making that's a great injustice because there are groups that are actually oppressed to this day, and to pretend that discrimination against that social group doesn't happen towards that social group because you reject social groups as a whole means you can't target any solutions properly.

Treat people equally. Their problems? Less so.[/quote]

It's fine to believe in social groups. Their existence in some form or another is a fact of life. The goal is to make sure that every social group is one that is being decided and defined by people who identify with it, not by anyone else. If someone wants to say they're a woman, they have the right to define what "woman" means. That's the goal. Since humans are not different on any fundamental level, pointless and externally-enforced divisions need to be eradicated. Pointless and externally-enforced divisions like those represented by sex-segregated facilities.

[The Emerald Dawn]

BWA HA. How the hell did they burn that shit out?

Apparently, they left it there until spring (or in this case, probably summer). Then they let it thaw.

Barbaric, isn't it?

That's...wow. No. No no no. We'd move the boxes, burn the shit in place, and replace the boxes. We may be imperialistic pigdogs, but god damn it we are CLEAN imperialistic pigdogs.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

I think that's the best solution.

A question for you, though. If there was only space for one, which do you think should take priority?

What do you mean by only one?

[Linux and the X]

Pointless and externally-enforced divisions like those represented by sex-segregated facilities.

Kindly show someone — recently — arguing for that.

[Snafturi]

Apparently, they left it there until spring (or in this case, probably summer). Then they let it thaw.

Barbaric, isn't it?

That's...wow. No. No no no. We'd move the boxes, burn the shit in place, and replace the boxes. We may be imperialistic pigdogs, but god damn it we are CLEAN imperialistic pigdogs.

I agree wholeheartedly. Burning the shit was better than the... alternatives(?). But I have a feeling burning the shit was more out of a desire to not dig more holes, and that sanitation was a secondary concern.

Then again, living in polar bear country probably rearranges one's priorities.

[YellowApple]

How can hate and bigotry exist to begin with if social groups don't exist?

Because even though /you/ may not think that social groups exist, everyone else does! And like it or not, perception does actually equal reality, at least in this case.

So no. If lawmakers decide to ignore the existence of social groups in policy making that's a great injustice because there are groups that are actually oppressed to this day, and to pretend that discrimination against that social group doesn't happen towards that social group because you reject social groups as a whole means you can't target any solutions properly.

Treat people equally. Their problems? Less so.

Then address the problems themselves, not the people having them. Problems are problems, regardless of skin color or sexuality. You don't have to differentiate people in order to find and solve problems.

I mean, if you'd like to perpetuate the idea of social groups, then fine. However, that's not addressing the actual problem: that the very existence of social groups is what actually allows for that oppression.

By the way, classification of such groups is referenced in the first stages of the so-called "8 Stages of Genocide". Just FYI.

[Snafturi]

I think that's the best solution.

A question for you, though. If there was only space for one, which do you think should take priority?

What do you mean by only one?

Sorry, that was quite vague.

I mean, if there was room for either gendered bathrooms or unisex, which do you think should take priority?

Granted, that's generally not going to be the case, but for the times it is.

[Linux and the X]

By the way, classification of such groups is referenced in the first stages of the so-called "8 Stages of Genocide". Just FYI.

Did you even read your link? "Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage: dehumanisation."

[Freelanderness]

Yes, and they should be constructed in a manner that this is feasible.

[The Steel Magnolia]

What do you mean by only one?

Sorry, that was quite vague.

I mean, if there was room for either gendered bathrooms or unisex, which do you think should take priority?

Granted, that's generally not going to be the case, but for the times it is.

That's... a good question, actually. And I don't know my answer.

[YellowApple]

By the way, classification of such groups is referenced in the first stages of the so-called "8 Stages of Genocide". Just FYI.

Did you even read your link? "Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage: dehumanisation."

That doesn't change my statement:

"classification of such groups is referenced in the first stages"

I mean, if folks are going to try to claim that social division is good, or even necessary, then I'm at a loss for words, and my hope for humanity overcoming its primitive instinct of "you look funny and are different so I'm going to regard you accordingly" has returned to non-existence.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Then address the problems themselves, not the people having them. Problems are problems, regardless of skin color or sexuality. You don't have to differentiate people in order to find and solve problems.

You can't address problems based on differentiating people without differentiating people. Nor is differentiating people bad.

I mean, if you'd like to perpetuate the idea of social groups, then fine. However, that's not addressing the actual problem: that the very existence of social groups is what actually allows for that oppression.

Actually no, it's dehumanization of others.

By the way, classification of such groups is referenced in the first stages of the so-called "8 Stages of Genocide". Just FYI.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Did you even read your link? "Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage: dehumanisation."

That doesn't change my statement:

"classification of such groups is referenced in the first stages"

I mean, if folks are going to try to claim that social division is good, or even necessary, then I'm at a loss for words, and my hope for humanity overcoming its primitive instinct of "you look funny and are different so I'm going to regard you accordingly" has returned to non-existence.

Well okay then. I'm not sure why you think we'd care, but okay.

You know we can actually embrace our differences right?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Did you even read your link? "Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage: dehumanisation."

That doesn't change my statement:

"classification of such groups is referenced in the first stages"

I mean, if folks are going to try to claim that social division is good, or even necessary, then I'm at a loss for words, and my hope for humanity overcoming its primitive instinct of "you look funny and are different so I'm going to regard you accordingly" has returned to non-existence.

Ok, the first step in making an atomic bomb is producing metal.

So everyone stop producing metal.

[Linux and the X]

Did you even read your link? "Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage: dehumanisation."

That doesn't change my statement:

"classification of such groups is referenced in the first stages"

See, I thought you were trying to say something relevant, so I assumed (since your argument was that people shouldn't recognise differences) that you thought you had a source that recognising differences is bad. Since your source didn't actually say that, it seemed you either failed to read or misunderstood your source; the former seemed more likely given the clarity of your source that it in fact makes the exact opposite claim you (apparently) thought it made.

[YellowApple]

That doesn't change my statement:

"classification of such groups is referenced in the first stages"

I mean, if folks are going to try to claim that social division is good, or even necessary, then I'm at a loss for words, and my hope for humanity overcoming its primitive instinct of "you look funny and are different so I'm going to regard you accordingly" has returned to non-existence.

Well okay then. I'm not sure why you think we'd care, but okay.

You know we can actually embrace our differences right?

Yeah, so you see a difference. So what? Move on. That difference is (hopefully) irrelevant to your perception of that individual as a fellow human being. Creating categories for those differences - while instinctual - is not necessary, or even useful.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Well okay then. I'm not sure why you think we'd care, but okay.

You know we can actually embrace our differences right?

Yeah, so you see a difference. So what? Move on. That difference is (hopefully) irrelevant to your perception of that individual as a fellow human being. Creating categories for those differences - while instinctual - is not necessary, or even useful.

Of course that difference is irrelevant to my perception of the individual. That doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist. Differences don't actually have to be negative.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Well okay then. I'm not sure why you think we'd care, but okay.

You know we can actually embrace our differences right?

Yeah, so you see a difference. So what? Move on. That difference is (hopefully) irrelevant to your perception of that individual as a fellow human being. Creating categories for those differences - while instinctual - is not necessary, or even useful.

Don't create metal.

[YellowApple]

Yeah, so you see a difference. So what? Move on. That difference is (hopefully) irrelevant to your perception of that individual as a fellow human being. Creating categories for those differences - while instinctual - is not necessary, or even useful.

Of course that difference is irrelevant to my perception of the individual. That doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist. Differences don't actually have to be negative.

But why does it matter to you, then? If the differences are irrelevant, then why solidify those differences by creating categories?