Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Vitaphone Racing]

I haven't argued against it yet. If you read back, you'll specifically note I spent most of my time telling you why toilets are designed the way they are and the rest asking you for a source. You do appear to think you're the logic guru but disagreeing with someone on something vaguely related doesn't mean you disagree with all view points. You should know that's fallacious to think so. Come on.

No, you spent your time telling me why toilets are designed the way they are, as a specific point to try and bolster the argument "the majority gets what it wants is a logical justification". Quit the intellectual dishonesty.

You know what, if you don't like people accusing you of a particular stance, come out and say your thoughts already in a plain and straightforward way. But don't bitch and moan when people accuse you of supporting a stance, because you argue in favor of it.

Look, don't try and tell me what and what not I'm arguing for. Don't give me this shit that it's perfectly acceptable for you to make assumptions of my character but then tell me I'm the one who's in the wrong if you make a mistake because I haven't been clean right from the start. I did not once argue that unisex toilets where a bad idea so don't sit there and tell me I did. For someone who loves logic you sure don't know how to use it.

Either you paraphrase exactly where I made this argument or shut the fuck up about it.

See, again you're wrong but have serious trouble admitting it. All you have to say is "shit, I thought you were arguing for something else but I was wrong! Sorry!"

Maybe people want to have them divided off.

You're missing the point.

If any man can go into any "woman's only room", and vice versa, they cease to be "male/female only" rooms. Meaning dividing off the rooms is entirely pointless. It's just a waste of resources at that point, to make two rooms, which could be one large room, two smaller rooms. There's no practical; benefit. It makes no sense. And it completely defies the point of segregating the rooms, so why bother even having the signs in the first place?

It's even less logical than enforcing the segregation of the rooms.

Oh for fucks sakes, it is perfectly logical to design rooms how people want them. It is a fact, a verifiable fact, that toilets are better used if they are found to be comfortable so it is perfectly logical to design a toilet with the comfort of it's users in mind to get the best customer satisfaction. I really don't know how or why you keep trying to dispute this.

No practical benefit? Saves knocking out a wall when converting existing toilets. If one room has to be closed then the other can remain open, if they were one room then the whole thing would have to be closed. One room could be closed overnight while the other could remain open for lesser patronage.

Oh wait, in your opinion you don't think any of this matters even though is all truth and fact so you can falsely use logic to say I'm wrong. I should be used to this because you've been doing this for hours.

So problem solved in other words?

My personal problem? Yeah.

The problem of it being illogical? No. All you've done is taken a convoluted situation, and make it even more convoluted, while claiming it as a solution.

Why do you care so much about the little signs on the doors? If they're meaningless, what's the point of even putting them up? again, it's just a waste of resources, with no practical or moral benefit. There's literally no reason to do it.

I don't know, to advertise which room has a urinal and which room has tampon bins maybe? Why does this really matter so much to you anyway? I cannot imagine how hard your life would be if you think every opinion or action has to have some logical justification behind it. Do you even have a favourite band or something?

[Aurora Novus]

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.

If I treat an apple like an orange, it is still an apples. Human treatment does not change what is. If I treat a depressed person like they're happy as ever, it doesn't change the fact that they are depressed.

Do not be so arrogant as to think that, simply by force of will, you can change reality. Even if we treat people like they belong to some mystical "other" group, that doesn't mean they do.

[The Steel Magnolia]

If I treat an apple like an orange, it is still an apples. Human treatment does not change what is. If I treat a depressed person like they're happy as ever, it doesn't change the fact that they are depressed.

Do not be so arrogant as to think that, simply by force of will, you can change reality. Even if we treat people like they belong to some mystical "other" group, that doesn't mean they do.

Actually, it kind of does.

[Aurora Novus]

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.

Once again, I still disagree. Just because you are involved with an issue, doesn't make your argument intrinsically better than someone who is not involved with the issue. Who you are, and the validity of your claims, are two different things entirely.

Yes, and? Show where someone has suggested that.

Segregated restrooms.

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

Yes. Democracy is not always just. Does this surprise you? This is why for so many years it was always held with suspicion and doubt of ever actually succeeding.

Just because something is a democracy, just because the majority wills it, does not mean the end result is just or morally permissible.

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.

Then explain how my logic is flawed. Is the premise "If something is unjustified, forcing it upon others is an injustice" flawed? IF not, then please, show me a sound argument for segregated restrooms.

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.

Some people, yes.

Not everyone gets what they want. The murderer doesn't get to murder. The racist doesn't get to discriminate.

The gender segregationist shouldn't get to segregate.

You continue to insist on a false premise.

The only false premise is the one you propose, that because the majority wills it, it is logical and just.

[Aurora Novus]

That would also be a great way of not having a majority to begin with, since the majority would not recognize its own existence either.

That sounds like a wonderful world!

How do we get there?`

By destroying the notion of viewing people as part of separate groups. Degenderizing society, and the way it deals with issues, along with other group-specific movements.

You may say "but certain people have been subject to certain harms". So attack the problem. You don't need to define them as part of some "group" in order to do it. Got a problem with abuse? Target abuse, not abuse towards group X. Problem with rape? Target rape, not rape towards group Z. And so on and so forth.

Shift attention to viewing everyone as part of the same group, human beings, and looking to eradicate problems as a whole, not paying attention to specific groups of people.

[Linux and the X]

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.

Once again, I still disagree. Just because you are involved with an issue, doesn't make your argument intrinsically better than someone who is not involved with the issue. Who you are, and the validity of your claims, are two different things entirely.

A person not involved in an issue is inherently unable to be as informed on the issue as a person who is. Therefore, they are less able to come up with a satisfactory solution to social problems.

Yes, and? Show where someone has suggested that.

Segregated restrooms.

What of them? Where was there a suggestion to separate them on penis/vagina?

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

Yes. Democracy is not always just. Does this surprise you? This is why for so many years it was always held with suspicion and doubt of ever actually succeeding.

Just because something is a democracy, just because the majority wills it, does not mean the end result is just or morally permissible.

Democracy is a fundamental part of our society. If you are suggesting fundamentally changing our society, fine, but tell us that's what you want.

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.

Then explain how my logic is flawed. Is the premise "If something is unjustified, forcing it upon others is an injustice" flawed? IF not, then please, show me a sound argument for segregated restrooms.

Because "unjustified" and "injustice" aren't the same thing?

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.

Some people, yes.

Not everyone gets what they want. The murderer doesn't get to murder. The racist doesn't get to discriminate.

Yes, people don't get to harm other people. Kindly demonstrate *actual harm* from having gendered bathrooms alongside a gender-neutral bathroom.

You continue to insist on a false premise.

The only false premise is the one you propose, that because the majority wills it, it is logical and just.

[/quote]
Again, that is a fundamental premise of our society. If you disagree with it, there are things much more fundamental you should focus on.

[The Steel Magnolia]

By destroying the notion of viewing people as part of separate groups. Degenderizing society, and the way it deals with issues, along with other group-specific movements.

Which is a terrible idea.

You may say "but certain people have been subject to certain harms". So attack the problem. You don't need to define them as part of some "group" in order to do it. Got a problem with abuse? Target abuse, not abuse towards group X. Problem with rape? Target rape, not rape towards group Z. And so on and so forth.

Which is a perfect recipe to continue those exact problems. So fuck that.

Shift attention to viewing everyone as part of the same group, human beings, and looking to eradicate problems as a whole, not paying attention to specific groups of people.

Ew, no. That's a terrible idea.

[Aurora Novus]

Look, don't try and tell me what and what not I'm arguing for. Don't give me this shit that it's perfectly acceptable for you to make assumptions of my character but then tell me I'm the one who's in the wrong if you make a mistake because I haven't been clean right from the start.

Your arguing against me implies you support the other stance. It's not an issue of you not being clear, it's an issue of you doing exactly what I'm accusing you of; supporting arguments for the other side.

I did not once argue that unisex toilets where a bad idea so don't sit there and tell me I did. For someone who loves logic you sure don't know how to use it.

I never accused you of that.

I accused you of supporting segregated washrooms.

Either you paraphrase exactly where I made this argument or shut the fuck up about it.

So, wait, all your posts about "the majority gets what it wants" in support of segregated washrooms, weren't actually in support of segregated washrooms?

Whooda thunk.

See, again you're wrong but have serious trouble admitting it. All you have to say is "shit, I thought you were arguing for something else but I was wrong! Sorry!"

I've asked you to, if you think I'm wrong in my accusations, explain what your thoughts are on the stance.

Do you refuse?

If so, I am left to conclude what I had earlier, that you support segregated washrooms, based upon your arguments. It is the most logical conclusion to draw.

Oh for fucks sakes, it is perfectly logical to design rooms how people want them. It is a fact, a verifiable fact, that toilets are better used if they are found to be comfortable so it is perfectly logical to design a toilet with the comfort of it's users in mind to get the best customer satisfaction. I really don't know how or why you keep trying to dispute this.

I'm not disputing the design of toilets. This isn't about that.

This is about which room I am and am not allowed to walk into.

No practical benefit? Saves knocking out a wall when converting existing toilets.

That doesn't justify it's existence. You're trying to justify the existence of segregated rooms, by claiming they exist, so they should stay. That doesn't solve the question, it just pushes it back. We than ask "Why should they have been made in the first place? Why should that wall have been put up in the first place?"

Your argument is the equivalent of putting an innocent man to death, only to find out minutes before that he's innocent, and responding with "well, shit, we already left him in prison for several years and just gathered all the materials together. Since we've already invested time and money in this, we might as well go through with ti."

If one room has to be closed then the other can remain open, if they were one room then the whole thing would have to be closed. One room could be closed overnight while the other could remain open for lesser patronage.

What are you even talking about here? Closing one sex's bathroom, while leaving the other open? What?

Oh wait, in your opinion you don't think any of this matters even though is all truth and fact so you can falsely use logic to say I'm wrong. I should be used to this because you've been doing this for hours.

I've said that arguments which have their basis in personal desire are not sound. I have personal desires too you know. What makes yours more important than mine? This is why you need suplemental reasons. Simply saying "It's my preference" is meaningless. Of course it's your preference. I imagine you wouldn't be arguing in support of it if it weren't.

Now give me a substantial reason to justify your way.

I don't know, to advertise which room has a urinal and which room has tampon bins maybe?

And why not have one room that has both?

Why does this really matter so much to you anyway?

Oh for fuck's sake, not this shit again. The last defense of a man with no argument. "Why does it matter so much to you? It's not a big deal!"

It's not a big deal, and it doesn't matter that much to me. But this is what the topic is about, so I'm discussing it.

I cannot imagine how hard your life would be if you think every opinion or action has to have some logical justification behind it. Do you even have a favourite band or something?

Yes, I do. And yes, there is logical reasoning but into why I like them. All things necessarily require justification. Only the insane hold views "just because".

[Aurora Novus]

If I treat an apple like an orange, it is still an apples. Human treatment does not change what is. If I treat a depressed person like they're happy as ever, it doesn't change the fact that they are depressed.

Do not be so arrogant as to think that, simply by force of will, you can change reality. Even if we treat people like they belong to some mystical "other" group, that doesn't mean they do.

Actually, it kind of does.

No, it doesn't. An apple is an apple, regardless of how you treat it. It's molecular structure doesn't change.

The world is "not what you make of it" so to speak. Your perception ideology is false, as pseudo-philosophy from ages past. Thank god we've grown past it thanks to science.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Actually, it kind of does.

No, it doesn't. An apple is an apple, regardless of how you treat it. It's molecular structure doesn't change.

The world is "not what you make of it" so to speak. Your perception ideology is false, as pseudo-philosophy from ages past. Thank god we've grown past it thanks to science.

Why do you call it an apple except by force of will .

For someone so 'logical' your arguments are laughably nonsensical.

[Aurora Novus]

A person not involved in an issue is inherently unable to be as informed on the issue as a person who is. Therefore, they are less able to come up with a satisfactory solution to social problems.

This is false. They are capable of gathering information, and perhaps holding views more valid than those directly involved. An easy way to understand this is someone who does research into an issue as an impartial observer, versus someone who only uses their specific narrow experiences to determine their views.

What you are claiming is factually false. A logically fallacious argument from authority. There is no inherent logical connection between being involved in an issue, and having the most superior views on the subject. A valid argument is a valid argument, no matter who it comes from.

What of them? Where was there a suggestion to separate them on penis/vagina?

Public restrooms are currently separated by sex. "Male only" and "Female only".

Democracy is a fundamental part of our society. If you are suggesting fundamentally changing our society, fine, but tell us that's what you want.

No, I don't want democracy to be done away with.

I simply want you to recognize that, even in a democratic society, the popular desire is not necessarily the most just desire, and therefore, in a debate, simply saying "the majority want it", doesn't logically justify it.

Because "unjustified" and "injustice" aren't the same thing?

Yes they are. I already went over this with Dusk_Kitten (I think was her name) 15 or so pages back. Anything with is unjust as an injustice, and for something to be an injustice, a component of that is that it is unjust. This has been confirmed by dictionary definitions, as well as simple logical deduction. That which is unjustified is an injustice. that which is an injustice, is unjustified.

Yes, people don't get to harm other people. Kindly demonstrate *actual harm* from having gendered bathrooms alongside a gender-neutral bathroom.

Because you still have segregated rooms. That is a restriction. All restriction, by virtue of denying freedoms, are harms. Banning murder is a harm. Banning rape is a harm. However, harms can be justified, if they prevent greater harms. This is why, although banning murder strips you of your right to murder, it is justified, because it is far more harmful to let you murder.

So banning my entry into a bathroom is a harm in of itself. And, if this banning is unjustified, enforcing it upon me with legal or social repercussions is an even greater harm. It is an injustice.

And that is precisely what I am contending. That there is no sound reason to justify their existence, and my and others continued banning from particular restrooms.

Again, that is a fundamental premise of our society.

I understand that.

What you don't understand, is that that doesn't make it logical or justified. "Majority wins", while how our society functions, does not always produce the most just outcomes, and therefore, in a debate, is not a logically sound argument. How people act in life is not necessarily logical.

[Aurora Novus]

Which is a terrible idea.

Why? Because you feel like valuing an ideal which intrinsically estranges and separates people? Just so you can feel like a special little snowflake? Get over yourself.

Which is a perfect recipe to continue those exact problems. So fuck that.

Not at all.

If everyone stopped thinking of other people as separate groups, people would stop treating others poorly on that basis.

Ew, no. That's a terrible idea.

In other words, you're not interested in actually solving problems for everyone? You just want them solved for you?

Charming. And heartless.

[Aurora Novus]

Why do you call it an apple except by force of will (Image).

This is meaningless. I'm not changing reality by calling it an apple. I'm assigning reality to easily accesible sound, to help me understand and memorize reality.

Calling something it's not, doesn't change it into what I call it; it is what it is, independent of my view of it.


Take the issue of race. We can pretend that having different colour skin, or different jaw structure, makes you part of some different "race", but biology has utterly destroyed this social myth, and revealed as just that; a social myth. We may pretend people are different races, but they factually aren't.

You cannot merely will reality to change, by calling something it is not.

[The Steel Magnolia]

What you are claiming is factually false. A logically fallacious argument from authority. There is no inherent logical connection between being involved in an issue, and having the most superior views on the subject. A valid argument is a valid argument, no matter who it comes from.

You know just because it's an argument from authority doesn't make the argument invalid, so it's not actually a fallacy.

A fallacy would be "X said Y, so Y must be true!" when Y doesn't contain an argument.

Public restrooms are currently separated by sex. "Male only" and "Female only".

They're still not separated by sex.

No, I don't want democracy to be done away with.

I simply want you to recognize that, even in a democratic society, the popular desire is not necessarily the most just desire, and therefore, in a debate, simply saying "the majority want it", doesn't logically justify it.

Tyranny by majority requires tyranny first.

Yes they are. I already went over this with Dusk_Kitten (I think was her name) 15 or so pages back. Anything with is unjust as an injustice, and for something to be an injustice, a component of that is that it is unjust. This has been confirmed by dictionary definitions, as well as simple logical deduction. That which is unjustified is an injustice. that which is an injustice, is unjustified.

Your logic, as has been extensively shown, is terrible. Dusk Kitten was quite correct.

Because you still have segregated rooms. That is a restriction. All restriction, by virtue of denying freedoms, are harms. Banning murder is a harm. Banning rape is a harm. However, harms can be justified, if they prevent greater harms. This is why, although banning murder strips you of your right to murder, it is justified, because it is far more harmful to let you murder.

Are you actually serious.

So banning my entry into a bathroom is a harm in of itself. And, if this banning is unjustified, enforcing it upon me with legal or social repercussions is an even greater harm. It is an injustice.

It's really not.

And that is precisely what I am contending. That there is no sound reason to justify their existence, and my and others continued banning from particular restrooms.

Except. You know. Preference. Which is perfectly fucking legitimate.

I understand that.

What you don't understand, is that that doesn't make it logical or justified. "Majority wins", while how our society functions, does not always produce the most just outcomes, and therefore, in a debate, is not a logically sound argument. How people act in life is not necessarily logical.

Thankfully, your brand of logic isn't the be all end all of everything.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Look, don't try and tell me what and what not I'm arguing for. Don't give me this shit that it's perfectly acceptable for you to make assumptions of my character but then tell me I'm the one who's in the wrong if you make a mistake because I haven't been clean right from the start.

Your arguing against me implies you support the other stance. It's not an issue of you not being clear, it's an issue of you doing exactly what I'm accusing you of; supporting arguments for the other side.

Saying the intricacies of your argument is wrong is not saying your whole idealogy is wrong and is not supporting arguments from the other side. Try again. Keep trying.

I did not once argue that unisex toilets where a bad idea so don't sit there and tell me I did. For someone who loves logic you sure don't know how to use it.

I never accused you of that.

I accused you of supporting segregated washrooms.

And your accusation was false. Deal with it.

Either you paraphrase exactly where I made this argument or shut the fuck up about it.

So, wait, all your posts about "the majority gets what it wants" in support of segregated washrooms, weren't actually in support of segregated washrooms?

Whooda thunk

Because I never argued the majority always gets what it wants so we have to have segregated washrooms. If you could read what I wrote you'd know this. Strawman yet again!

See, again you're wrong but have serious trouble admitting it. All you have to say is "shit, I thought you were arguing for something else but I was wrong! Sorry!"

I've asked you to, if you think I'm wrong in my accusations, explain what your thoughts are on the stance.

That it shouldn't be illegal nor socially unacceptable to enter a bathroom of the opposite gender but whether or not toilets are designed for the use of one sex in particular should be done on a case by case basis and not a blanket ban on these toilets.

Do you refuse?

If so, I am left to conclude what I had earlier, that you support segregated washrooms, based upon your arguments. It is the most logical conclusion to draw.

If you had of waited for me to reply, you wouldn't have had to write this.

Oh for fucks sakes, it is perfectly logical to design rooms how people want them. It is a fact, a verifiable fact, that toilets are better used if they are found to be comfortable so it is perfectly logical to design a toilet with the comfort of it's users in mind to get the best customer satisfaction. I really don't know how or why you keep trying to dispute this.

I'm not disputing the design of toilets. This isn't about that.

This is about which room I am and am not allowed to walk into.

You've been saying it's illogical to design toilets according to opinions from the very beginning. Either you've had a sudden change of heart or you've finally understood exactly what I'm saying.

No practical benefit? Saves knocking out a wall when converting existing toilets.

That doesn't justify it's existence. You're trying to justify the existence of segregated rooms, by claiming they exist, so they should stay. That doesn't solve the question, it just pushes it back. We than ask "Why should they have been made in the first place? Why should that wall have been put up in the first place?"

They aren't segregated anymore, it's a room that anyone can walk into.

Your argument is the equivalent of putting an innocent man to death, only to find out minutes before that he's innocent, and responding with "well, shit, we already left him in prison for several years and just gathered all the materials together. Since we've already invested time and money in this, we might as well go through with ti."

No, my argument is why bother knocking out a wall when it isn't doing any harm at the moment and could even be useful.

If one room has to be closed then the other can remain open, if they were one room then the whole thing would have to be closed. One room could be closed overnight while the other could remain open for lesser patronage.

What are you even talking about here? Closing one sex's bathroom, while leaving the other open? What?

You've never experienced one side of a public toilet being closed and another open before? You need to get out more.

Oh wait, in your opinion you don't think any of this matters even though is all truth and fact so you can falsely use logic to say I'm wrong. I should be used to this because you've been doing this for hours.

I've said that arguments which have their basis in personal desire are not sound. I have personal desires too you know. What makes yours more important than mine? This is why you need suplemental reasons. Simply saying "It's my preference" is meaningless. Of course it's your preference. I imagine you wouldn't be arguing in support of it if it weren't.

Now give me a substantial reason to justify your way.

This isn't actually what I'm arguing for the fifteenth time.

I don't know, to advertise which room has a urinal and which room has tampon bins maybe?

And why not have one room that has both?

Maybe they haven't knocked out that wall just yet.

Why does this really matter so much to you anyway?

Oh for fuck's sake, not this shit again. The last defense of a man with no argument. "Why does it matter so much to you? It's not a big deal!"

It's not a big deal, and it doesn't matter that much to me. But this is what the topic is about, so I'm discussing it.

The topic is about useless signs being left up, now is it? I really don't think anyone cares if a toilet has two entrances with a funny picture on each that makes no sense anymore, it isn't something I'm going to have a breakdown over. If it gets left up, who gives a shit? If it gets taken down, who gives a shit?

I cannot imagine how hard your life would be if you think every opinion or action has to have some logical justification behind it. Do you even have a favourite band or something?

Yes, I do. And yes, there is logical reasoning but into why I like them. All things necessarily require justification. Only the insane hold views "just because".

Here is where you're wrong, because an opinion is always less than certain otherwise it would be a fact. Beliefs aren't logical even if you have an argument to support it. An opinion is subjective, and you've conisistently claimed logic to be objective all through the thread. Everybody holds views "just because" so I guess that makes you insane like the rest of us.

[Aurora Novus]

You know just because it's an argument from authority doesn't make the argument invalid, so it's not actually a fallacy.

Yes it does. Simply saying "I'm in a position of authority on the subject, so your claim is automatically inferior" is fallacy; merely being in a position of authority, does not mean you intrinsically have the better argument.

They're still not separated by sex.

So when there are legal and social repercussion for a woman entering a bathroom that quite clearly says "men only", or "men's room", or some other variation of defining the room as "belonging to men", this isn't being separated by sex?

Pray tell, what is then?

Tyranny by majority requires tyranny first.

I did not even say tyranny of the majority there. I simply said being in the majority =/= having the most logical or just argument.

Your logic, as has been extensively shown, is terrible. Dusk Kitten was quite correct.

Dusk Kitten was quite correct, despite my proving her wrong with dictionary definitions, and her providing absolutely no sources of her own?

You're just trying to disagree with everything I say, aren't you? No one can be that stupid.

Are you actually serious.

Yes.

A denial of freedom is a harm. Do you deny this?

It's really not.

It really is.

See, I can give unsubstantiated claims as well. Simply saying "nu uh!!" isn't an argument.

Except. You know. Preference. Which is perfectly fucking legitimate.

No, it's not. Not as a logic-based argument. Again, I have a preference too. What make your preference more valid then mine? You need supplemental reasons to justify denying my preference.

Thankfully, your brand of logic isn't the be all end all of everything.

It's not "my brand of logic", it is simply logic.

Your unwillingness to accept reality is your problem.

[The Steel Magnolia]

You know just because it's an argument from authority doesn't make the argument invalid, so it's not actually a fallacy.

Yes it does. Simply saying "I'm in a position of authority on the subject, so your claim is automatically inferior" is fallacy; merely being in a position of authority, does not mean you intrinsically have the better argument.

Thankfully we provided an argument.

So when there are legal and social repercussion for a woman entering a bathroom that quite clearly says "men only", or "men's room", or some other variation of defining the room as "belonging to men", this isn't being separated by sex?

Pray tell, what is then?

Separated by gender?

Also social restrictions mang.

I did not even say tyranny of the majority there. I simply said being in the majority =/= having the most logical or just argument.

No one argued this.

Dusk Kitten was quite correct, despite my proving her wrong with dictionary definitions, and her providing absolutely no sources of her own?

You're just trying to disagree with everything I say, aren't you? No one can be that stupid.

Careful now, you're coming close to flamebaiting.

Anyway, you should reread what she actually said.

Yes.

A denial of freedom is a harm. Do you deny this?

Obviously? We restrict freedoms all the time. To call them harms is inane.

It really is.

See, I can give unsubstantiated claims as well. Simply saying "nu uh!!" isn't an argument.

I've given plenty of substantiation. I fail to see why I should copy paste stuff from pages past.

No, it's not. Not as a logic-based argument. Again, I have a preference too. What make your preference more valid then mine? You need supplemental reasons to justify denying my preference.

Thankfully, policy isn't based entirely on logic!

[Linux and the X]

A person not involved in an issue is inherently unable to be as informed on the issue as a person who is. Therefore, they are less able to come up with a satisfactory solution to social problems.

This is false. They are capable of gathering information, and perhaps holding views more valid than those directly involved. An easy way to understand this is someone who does research into an issue as an impartial observer, versus someone who only uses their specific narrow experiences to determine their views.

What you are claiming is factually false. A logically fallacious argument from authority. There is no inherent logical connection between being involved in an issue, and having the most superior views on the subject. A valid argument is a valid argument, no matter who it comes from.

It is a non-fallacious argument from authority; they fallacy is more properly argument from irrelevant authority. A valid argument is a valid argument, but a person with less information is inherently less able to form a valid argument, and an uninvolved person will have less information because it's not a fucking part of their life at all times.

What of them? Where was there a suggestion to separate them on penis/vagina?

Public restrooms are currently separated by sex. "Male only" and "Female only".

Public restrooms are currently separated by gender. You may notice they say "men" and "women". There are, to be sure, people who don't recognise that sex and gender are different, and therefore will claim someone is in the wrong bathroom based on sex, but that is not an intended effect.

Democracy is a fundamental part of our society. If you are suggesting fundamentally changing our society, fine, but tell us that's what you want.

No, I don't want democracy to be done away with.

I simply want you to recognize that, even in a democratic society, the popular desire is not necessarily the most just desire, and therefore, in a debate, simply saying "the majority want it", doesn't logically justify it.

It does unless a better refutation than "I disagree with the majority" is given.

Because "unjustified" and "injustice" aren't the same thing?

Yes they are. I already went over this with Dusk_Kitten (I think was her name) 15 or so pages back. Anything with is unjust as an injustice, and for something to be an injustice, a component of that is that it is unjust. This has been confirmed by dictionary definitions, as well as simple logical deduction. That which is unjustified is an injustice. that which is an injustice, is unjustified.

Unjust and unjustified, while similar words, do not have the same meaning.

Yes, people don't get to harm other people. Kindly demonstrate *actual harm* from having gendered bathrooms alongside a gender-neutral bathroom.

Because you still have segregated rooms. That is a restriction. All restriction, by virtue of denying freedoms, are harms. Banning murder is a harm. Banning rape is a harm. However, harms can be justified, if they prevent greater harms. This is why, although banning murder strips you of your right to murder, it is justified, because it is far more harmful to let you murder.

In that case, let us consider the harm being avoided people's discomfort.

Again, that is a fundamental premise of our society.

I understand that.

What you don't understand, is that that doesn't make it logical or justified. "Majority wins", while how our society functions, does not always produce the most just outcomes, and therefore, in a debate, is not a logically sound argument. How people act in life is not necessarily logical.

[/quote]
I thought you were okay with democracy? It is logically sound in a debate how how society functions because it is a part of how society functions.

Really, if you want to or need to use a bathroom not marked for your gender, just do so without making a fuss and it's quite rare anyone will care.

[The Lone Alliance]

Why is it always Brighton that does all these things?

[Aurora Novus]

Saying the intricacies of your argument is wrong is not saying your whole idealogy is wrong and is not supporting arguments from the other side. Try again. Keep trying.

You're right, it's not.

Thankfully, that's not what I said.

What I said was, you creating arguments which support the other side, is evidence fo you, shocker, supporting the other side.

And your accusation was false. Deal with it.

So I guess all of your "majority wins" arguments just didn't happen, right?

Because I never argued the majority always gets what it wants so we have to have segregated washrooms. If you could read what I wrote you'd know this. Strawman yet again!

Bulllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiit.

You keep spewing this same old "personal opinion isn't valid" rhetoric, and still seem completely numb to the fact that personal opinion is vital if not crucial when desiging civic features.

And yes, when designing facilities for the public, attempting to please the majority is more often than not, justified. You can keep saying that trying to please everybody isn't a logically valid argument except you'd be ignoring how and why toilets are even designed in the first place.

Shall I post more, or have I made my point? You have been, repeatedly, trying to justify a "majority gets what it wants" argument.

That it shouldn't be illegal nor socially unacceptable to enter a bathroom of the opposite gender but whether or not toilets are designed for the use of one sex in particular should be done on a case by case basis and not a blanket ban on these toilets.

Why do you keep bringing up toilets? Do you think there are somehow different toilets for men and women (well, aside from urinals). Stalls are already unisex. We're not "destroying" any toilets by making all bathrooms unisex. We're simply no longer allowing a person to be barred from a room based on their sex. Toilets literally have nothing to do with this. this ins't about the toilet. It's about access to the room. It's as simple as taking the "Male/Female only" signs off the doors. Boom. Done.

Do you refuse?

If so, I am left to conclude what I had earlier, that you support segregated washrooms, based upon your arguments. It is the most logical conclusion to draw.

If you had of waited for me to reply, you wouldn't have had to write this.

You've been saying it's illogical to design toilets according to opinions from the very beginning. Either you've had a sudden change of heart or you've finally understood exactly what I'm saying.

I've never once stated that.

I've claimed that segregating rooms on the basis of personal taste is unjust. I never said anything about how toilets are constructed.

Pay closer attention.

They aren't segregated anymore, it's a room that anyone can walk into.

Now I'm completely confused as to what you're trying to say. First you try to say rooms should be segregated, and that the segregation is justified because it would be cheaper to not make them segregated, yet now you've done a 180 and are saying "they aren't segregated anymore".

Look, let's clarify. This is my stance:

"Segregated rooms are a restriction. Restrictions are inherently harmful. Therefore, they need justification. If it is found that there is no sound justification for the segregation of rooms, then to enforce the segregation is an injustice. There is no sound justification. Therefore, to segregate the sexes to different rooms is an injustice."

Do you dispute this, or agree? If you dispute it, can you provide sound justification for the segregation? If you agree...then why are we even arguing?

This has never been about the construction or design of toilets. This has always been about access to rooms.

I'll wait for a response to this question before going on, because at this point, this whole conversation is a mess.

[The Steel Magnolia]

And the restrictions are inherently harmful stance is fucking stupid.

[Linux and the X]

Why is it always Brighton that does all these things?

Brighton has a fairly large queer community.

[Aurora Novus]

Thankfully we provided an argument.[./quote]

And what was that argument, pray tell? Looking back on the past 40 pages, all I see are "It's what the majority wants, so we should get it."

Is that your argument? If not, what is it?

Separated by gender?

Don't play semantics with me.

Gender, sex, it's irrelevant; the point is, it's segregation. Do you have a sound justification for it?

No one argued this.

Yes, they have. Repeatedly. Maybe not you specifically, but others, yes.

Careful now, you're coming close to flamebaiting.

Anyway, you should reread what she actually said.

I was there. I read her posts.

She claimed "unjust" and "unjustified" did not have the same meaning.

I proved her wrong with definitions.

Case closed.

Obviously? We restrict freedoms all the time. To call them harms is inane.

No, it's not. We restrict freedoms all the time, yes. This doesn't change the fact that restricting your ability to do something is intrinsically harmful.

I've given plenty of substantiation. I fail to see why I should copy paste stuff from pages past.

"All I can see you haveing posted is irrelevant arguments."

"Nu uh! I've posted lots of good things other than that!"

"Oh really? Quote one thing."

"Uhhhh...no!"

Uhuh.

Either quote or take the 5 seconds necessary to restate and argument, or I have no reason to believe you when (1) all I see is you saying "personal preference is valid", and (2) you refuse to show me anything else.

Thankfully, policy isn't based entirely on logic!

You're right, it's not.

I would not be thankful of that however. Unless of course you like it when policy is based upon irrationality. In which case...honestly, why should anyone take you seriously in the least?

And once again, however policy is based, this is a debate; logic is what rules here.

[The Lone Alliance]

Why is it always Brighton that does all these things?

Brighton has a fairly large queer community.

I wonder how much more will they do until that's the only community they have.

[Aurora Novus]

It is a non-fallacious argument from authority; they fallacy is more properly argument from irrelevant authority. A valid argument is a valid argument, but a person with less information is inherently less able to form a valid argument, and an uninvolved person will have less information because it's not a fucking part of their life at all times.

You're right, a person with less information is less capable of forming a valid argument.

That is not the same as what you were saying before however, that someone who is not involved will always have an inferior argument. Do you deny that this is folly?

Public restrooms are currently separated by gender. You may notice they say "men" and "women". There are, to be sure, people who don't recognise that sex and gender are different, and therefore will claim someone is in the wrong bathroom based on sex, but that is not an intended effect.

Bollocks. There are laws which do not recognize a distinction between "gender" and "sex", socially, many people do not recognize a distinction, and even the signs on doors are made to mirror body images, not gender. to say they are based on gender and not sex is ridiculous.

Beyond that though, it doesn't matter. Gender, sex, it's irrelevant. The point is, there is a segregation. What is the justification for it?

It does unless a better refutation than "I disagree with the majority" is given.

1) No, it doesn't. Being in the majority does not make your arguments more or less valid in any way. The number of people who agree with you has no bearing on how truthful, logical, or just your claim is. This is not disputable. It is a fact. A majority can be wrong. A majority can be unjust.

2) That's not the basis for my opposition.

Unjust and unjustified, while similar words, do not have the same meaning.

Yes, they do. Shall I quote the post for you where I proved this?

"Unjust" is NOT "unjustified." Now I am beginning to believe that you're doing it on purpose.

Yes it is.

Justified: to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right.

To reiterate:

Unjust: not just; lacking in justice or fairness.

Justice necessarily involves being right and just, as defined here:

Justice: the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.

Justice involves being right and just. Unjustified is the lack of being just. Unjust is the lack of justice, or in other words, being right or just.

Therefore, as all the above definitions prove, that which is unjustified is unjust.

That which is unjust is unjustified. that which is unjustified, is unjust.

In that case, let us consider the harm being avoided people's discomfort.

And what is the basis of their discomfort, and why should it be protected, when it the past (racial segregation), people were made to get over their prejudices?

I thought you were okay with democracy? It is logically sound in a debate how how society functions because it is a part of how society functions.

This isn't a debate about how society functions.
This is a debate about what is just and moral.

I'm okay with democracy, because I think it is the best form of government. That does not mean it always makes just decisions. It just think it is the most moral government, which will make the most just decisions, most often.

Really, if you want to or need to use a bathroom not marked for your gender, just do so without making a fuss and it's quite rare anyone will care.

Not in my experience, or the experience of others.