Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Linux and the X]

There are many good reasons to have gender-neutral bathrooms. However, there aren't reasons to forbid gendered bathrooms alongside, other than "I don't want people to be allowed to have a voluntarily gendered space" (alright, and "three bathrooms would take up a lot of space").

[The Emerald Dawn]

Yeah, we'll just say "No more assault" and just like fucking magic, there won't be any more assault.

Mother fucker, why did I not think of that years ago.

Christ. It is so fucking simple a caveman could do it.

That's not what I meant and you damn well know it.
And ftr, a sign saying "Women" won't keep a man out if he wants to assault someone. You think a predator is going to stalk a girl, then wait patiently outside the bathroom door?

Crazy things restrooms. See, a woman goes into a space that is identified for women and feels that she is safe from what she perceives and internalizes as a threat.

She does this, by going into a woman's only restroom because she knows that, by social custom, men will not follow her here.

If a man does, and does not flee when informed that he is in the wrong place, he is clearly someone to be worried about.

That is why women will retreat to restrooms. For moments away from what they perceive as a threat.

Should they perceive this as a threat? No. Wish they didn't have to.

Some women do. Let's do the silly thing and just accommodate them.

[Aurora Novus]

to say you cant piss next to someone of the opposite sex is causing harm?

I've already conceded that it is a harm.

However, why si someone's own inability to do something based on their own biases or deficiencies, cause to harm others? We don't respect this kind of thinking if it were a white man, complaining about not being able to use a bathroom with a black man. We would tell them to get help, or to find a way to overcome their own personal problem.

Why should society be expected to cater to this irrational fears, rather than expect people to find ways to suck it up and deal with them?

[Aurora Novus]

We restrict freedoms all the time.

I know we do.

That doesn't change the fact that it's a harm.

It's merely justifiable, because they counter greater harms.

Restrictions which do not counter a great harm are viewed as injustices, and inherent harms. Such as censorship of ideas. This is because a lack of freedom is a harm, and if it's not negating a greater harn, and unnecessary harm.

It`s really not a problem, and to characterize it as a problem is, as I said, fucking stupid.

Whether or not you find it stupid, doesn't change what is. Sorry.

[Linux and the X]

to say you cant piss next to someone of the opposite sex is causing harm?

I've already conceded that it is a harm.

However, why si someone's own inability to do something based on their own biases or deficiencies, cause to harm others? We don't respect this kind of thinking if it were a white man, complaining about not being able to use a bathroom with a black man. We would tell them to get help, or to find a way to overcome their own personal problem.

Why should society be expected to cater to this irrational fears, rather than expect people to find ways to suck it up and deal with them?

Racial segregation was a case of a minority being oppressed and protesting against it. There is not a minority being oppressed by the mere existence of gendered restrooms, and due to not existing they are not protesting against it. The situations, therefore, are not comparable.

[Aurora Novus]

Why do we need to discriminate?

Because different groups have different needs and we can't treat everyone the same if we want an equitable society?

Your gender doesn't not make you part of a "different group" with "different needs". Not as far as shitting on a toilet pertains.

And before you say "but I feel uncomfortable doing X", that's not something inherent to your "gender", that's a personal, mental problem. That you need to deal with on your won, or seek some form of help for.

[Ethel mermania]

to say you cant piss next to someone of the opposite sex is causing harm?

I've already conceded that it is a harm.

However, why si someone's own inability to do something based on their own biases or deficiencies, cause to harm others? We don't respect this kind of thinking if it were a white man, complaining about not being able to use a bathroom with a black man. We would tell them to get help, or to find a way to deal with it

Why should society be expected to cater to this irrational fears, rather than expect people to find ways to suck it up and deal with them?

you mean it isn't harm?

because society gets to define what society does. sex has always been treated differently than other activities, which is a societal choice. Any free government that expects its people to suck up and deal wiht something they do not want to suck up and deal with is not governing with the consent of the governed.

[Norstal]

I personally would not care if public restrooms became gender neutral, but I can see why people would get upset over it If a woman wants to be in the presence of me using the facilities, that is her unfortunate choice.


But seriously NSG, what do you think about the possibility of all Public Restrooms becoming gender neutral? Good thing? Or bad thing?

The lines.

Oh god, the lines.

I'm all for gender equality, but you women need to get off my restrooms.

[Aurora Novus]

Urinals and waste disposal issues are one

Again, why can they not exist within the same room?

, perception of safety and a requirement for safe spaces are another.

Perception of safety is the problem of the individual, not society. And bathrooms can easily be made spacious enough for both genders. Again, if you're diverting 50% of people off into two different rooms, combing the rooms, and allowing both people to enter, does not in any way change efficiency.

I treat bathrooms like safe spaces. Most women I know do.

They're placing for shitting (and pissing). Nothing more, nothing less. I'd you want to treat it as a social hangout, fine. But don't try and pull this bullshit reasoning that allowing the opposite sex into the room, somehow makes it a dangerous environment. That's ridiculous, and you have yet to give any reason for why this is a plausible concern. Anytime someone challenges it, you immediately fall back on "well, it's the PERCEPTION of safety that matters". Which is bullshit.

[The USOT]

Normally I would say yes, but every time I have spoken to anyone who cleans toilets I am always told that womens toilets are terrible in comparrison to mens.
Now ive been told this by cleaners where the male toilets have been awful. So awful I wouldnt actually use them. If the womens were worse then I really dont want to share that with them lol

[Norstal]

Urinals and waste disposal issues are one, perception of safety and a requirement for safe spaces are another.

I treat bathrooms like safe spaces. Most women I know do.

No one needs a urinal. Toilets work fine. Who says we can't have a waste basket in gender neutral bathrooms?
Instead of saying, "Gendered bathrooms to stop assault" why don't we say "No more assault"?

Really? No one needs a quick way of pissing and then getting out?

[Aurora Novus]

There are many good reasons to have gender-neutral bathrooms. However, there aren't reasons to forbid gendered bathrooms alongside, other than "I don't want people to be allowed to have a voluntarily gendered space" (alright, and "three bathrooms would take up a lot of space").

Banning them doesn't require any justification outside of them lacking justification to exist. Again, the natural state of things is for things to be public to everyone. To change that requires justification.

Unisex bathrooms are the natural situation. They are the negative side of the argument. Segregated rooms are a change to the natural state. They are the positive argument.

So if there is no justification for segregated rooms to exist, that is all the justification we need to make only unisex rooms exist.

Do not try and shift your burden of proof onto the negative.

[Linux and the X]

There are many good reasons to have gender-neutral bathrooms. However, there aren't reasons to forbid gendered bathrooms alongside, other than "I don't want people to be allowed to have a voluntarily gendered space" (alright, and "three bathrooms would take up a lot of space").

Banning them doesn't require any justification outside of them lacking justification to exist. Again, the natural state of things is for things to be public to everyone. To change that requires justification.

Unisex bathrooms are the natural situation. They are the negative side of the argument. Segregated rooms are a change to the natural state. They are the positive argument.

So if there is no justification for segregated rooms to exist, that is all the justification we need to make only unisex rooms exist.

Do not try and shift your burden of proof onto the negative.

The justification is that people want them.

[Xathranaar]

There were coed bathrooms in my dorm in College, it didn't cause any problems.

[Aurora Novus]

Racial segregation was a case of a minority being oppressed and protesting against it. There is not a minority being oppressed by the mere existence of gendered restrooms

Yes there is, as again, there are people (me and others) arguing against their existence. Just because you don;t ant to recognize us, doesn't mean we don't exist.

The situations, therefore, are not comparable.

The situations are entirely comparable. In both we have someone claiming "this person makes me uncomfortable, I shouldn't have to hare bathrooms with them". And in both situations we have someone saying "This is hogwash, and unjust discrimination."

The people complaining certainly exist. Who do you think you've been arguing with for the past several hours? Air?

[Aurora Novus]

The justification is that people want them.

That is not a logically sound argument, as we have been over extensively. I also have a desire. What makes your desire more valid than mine? You must have reasoning other than "people want them that way".

[The Emerald Dawn]

Racial segregation was a case of a minority being oppressed and protesting against it. There is not a minority being oppressed by the mere existence of gendered restrooms

Yes there is, as again, there are people (me and others) arguing against their existence. Just because you don;t ant to recognize us, doesn't mean we don't exist.

The situations, therefore, are not comparable.

The situations are entirely comparable. In both we have someone claiming "this person makes me uncomfortable, I shouldn't have to hare bathrooms with them". And in both situations we have someone saying "This is hogwash, and unjust discrimination."

The people complaining certainly exist. Who do you think you've been arguing with for the past several hours? Air?

Now I know why your logic fetish annoys the fuck out of me.

It reminds me of an ex-girlfriend I have. She was so obsessed with logic she had to qualify each sexual encounter.

[YellowApple]

Yes there is, as again, there are people (me and others) arguing against their existence. Just because you don;t ant to recognize us, doesn't mean we don't exist.



The situations are entirely comparable. In both we have someone claiming "this person makes me uncomfortable, I shouldn't have to hare bathrooms with them". And in both situations we have someone saying "This is hogwash, and unjust discrimination."

The people complaining certainly exist. Who do you think you've been arguing with for the past several hours? Air?

Now I know why your logic fetish annoys the fuck out of me.

It reminds me of an ex-girlfriend I have. She was so obsessed with logic she had to qualify each sexual encounter.

One of my own ex-girlfriends assigned "homework" to me: specifically, a two-page essay detailing the pros and cons of us being alone in a room together. Single-spaced, mind you.

So yeah. No sympathy for you

[Aurora Novus]

you mean it isn't harm?

because society gets to define what society does. sex has always been treated differently than other activities, which is a societal choice. Any free government that expects its people to suck up and deal wiht something they do not want to suck up and deal with is not governing with the consent of the governed.

So? This is a discussion about what is the most just and moral action. Just because someone wants something, doesn't make it just or moral. And as we have seen in the past, certain people's desires went unseen, because society declared fulfilling them to be something they would not tolerate.

Just because sex has been treated as some special, taboo subject, doesn't justify treating it as such. All it does is push the question back. Why should it have become tradition in the first place? What justifies it being treated that way?

You're not solving the question, you're just making it more complicated, by adding unnecessary hoops.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The men's restroom is a place for farting loudly and remaining silent while you carefully avoid looking at anybody.

The women's restroom is a social hub where all kinds of mysterious and arcane social rituals take place.

These days, it's not a matter of 'gender' so much as 'culture.' Integrating all public restrooms would be like throwing a Southern Baptist congregation into a Russian Orthodox church.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

No one needs a urinal. Toilets work fine. Who says we can't have a waste basket in gender neutral bathrooms?
Instead of saying, "Gendered bathrooms to stop assault" why don't we say "No more assault"?

Really? No one needs a quick way of pissing and then getting out?

Exactly how does a toilet make a man less able to pee?

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

There were coed bathrooms in my dorm in College, it didn't cause any problems.

Same here. No one has any problems with them as far as I've heard. In fact, we're looking at gaining more neutral bathrooms.

[Linux and the X]

Racial segregation was a case of a minority being oppressed and protesting against it. There is not a minority being oppressed by the mere existence of gendered restrooms

Yes there is, as again, there are people (me and others) arguing against their existence. Just because you don;t ant to recognize us, doesn't mean we don't exist.

I'm using "minority" in the sociological sense; that is (to simplify), an identifiable group that on the basis of some characteristic or set of characteristics holds a position of lesser power in society, both collectively and in most cases individually, having shared and common identity and burdens, and as a result of being a member of that group suffers discrimination, subordination, and prejudice. So no, you do not qualify as a minority.

[Aurora Novus]

Yes there is, as again, there are people (me and others) arguing against their existence. Just because you don;t ant to recognize us, doesn't mean we don't exist.



The situations are entirely comparable. In both we have someone claiming "this person makes me uncomfortable, I shouldn't have to hare bathrooms with them". And in both situations we have someone saying "This is hogwash, and unjust discrimination."

The people complaining certainly exist. Who do you think you've been arguing with for the past several hours? Air?

Now I know why your logic fetish annoys the fuck out of me.

It reminds me of an ex-girlfriend I have. She was so obsessed with logic she had to qualify each sexual encounter.

Well I am an INTJ.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Urinals and waste disposal issues are one, perception of safety and a requirement for safe spaces are another.

I treat bathrooms like safe spaces. Most women I know do.

No one needs a urinal. Toilets work fine. Who says we can't have a waste basket in gender neutral bathrooms?
Instead of saying, "Gendered bathrooms to stop assault" why don't we say "No more assault"?

Because wishy washy bullshit that doesn't target groups that are more at risk of assault doesn't help a damn thing?

It's like the whole "equalism, not feminism!" crap.