Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

Well apparently telling rapists they can't harm is a harm now.

You heard it here folks!

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

It really really does.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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".

Nobody gives a shit that it's logically or not logically sound.

Similarly, no one gives a shit what you want either. Thank fucking christ.

[Aurora Novus]

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.

Fair enough, by your definition of minority (well, possible, I am agendered and asexual), I may not qualify.

However, I'm not seeing how it is that invalidates my previous point.

[Aurora Novus]

Well apparently telling rapists they can't harm is a harm now.

You heard it here folks!

Yes, it is, because it is a restriction of their freedoms.

However, it is unjustifiable harm, because allowing them to rape would create an even greater harn.

This is a very simple concept.

[Aurora Novus]

It really really does.

Not a counter-argument.

You really like making unfounded statements, and then pretend they're of any worth, don't you? Simply saying "nu uh" is meaningless.

Try again.

[Aurora Novus]

Nobody gives a shit that it's logically or not logically sound.

That's a problem then, as we have a society that does not encourage truth seeking and critical analysis.

Why are you so opposed to intellectualism? Why do you want people to just dogmatically accept what you want, because you say so?

Further more, what are you doing commenting on a subject, if you are opposed to the usage of logic to come to a conclusion about that subject?

Similarly, no one gives a shit what you want either. Thank fucking christ.

1) Not so, there are those who agree with me.
2) Why should not one care about what I have to say? Why should anyone care what you have to say?

At least I don't openly spit in the face of logic and rationality. honestly, you've completely destroyed any credibility you might've had at this point.

[Xathranaar]

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.

Admittedly, I was a little bit surprised at the intensity of female urination. But the novelty quickly wore off.

[Linux and the X]

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.

Fair enough, by your definition of minority (well, possible, I am agendered and asexual), I may not qualify.

Those are minorities, but as neither are you oppressed by the mere existence of gendered spaces (specifically bathrooms). Everyone outside the gender binary is oppressed by the lack of appropriate restrooms, of course, but not the existence of inappropriate restrooms.

Nobody gives a shit that it's logically or not logically sound.

That's a problem then, as we have a society that does not encourage truth seeking and critical analysis.

Why are you so opposed to intellectualism? Why do you want people to just dogmatically accept what you want, because you say so?

Further more, what are you doing commenting on a subject, if you are opposed to the usage of logic to come to a conclusion about that subject?

Similarly, no one gives a shit what you want either. Thank fucking christ.

1) Not so, there are those who agree with me.
2) Why should not one care about what I have to say? Why should anyone care what you have to say?

At least I don't openly spit in the face of logic and rationality. honestly, you've completely destroyed any credibility you might've had at this point.

What she means (I think; she can correct me if I'm wrong) is that nobody gives a shit if it is logical within the incomplete, unrealistic, and stunted subset of logic you're willing to use, a subset that openly ignores how people feel. Feelings are not themselves logical, but logical decision making must consider feelings.

[Aurora Novus]

Those are minorities, but as neither are you oppressed by the mere existence of gendered spaces (specifically bathrooms).

Yes, I am. The mere act of restricting my access to a room is a form of oppression. Just because I am not part of a sociological "minority:" group, doesn't make it any less oppression. If you are having a specific semantical issue with the term "oppression", think restriction instead. The issue is one and the same.

You still have to justify the existence of the segregated rooms. You don't get a pass. This is your burden of proof as Pro.

What she means (I think; she can correct me if I'm wrong) is that nobody gives a shit if it is logical within the incomplete, unrealistic, and stunted subset of logic you're willing to use, a subset that openly ignores how people feel. Feelings are not themselves logical, but logical decision making must consider feelings.

I'm not saying logic does not consider feelings.

But just because it considers feelings, does not mean it recognizes them to be, themselves, valid arguments. Emotional appeals are far more often than not fallacious, especially if coupled with no supplemental reasoning.

So for (hopefully) the final time, simply saying "the majority wants it" is not a sound justification.

[The Lone Alliance]

So for (hopefully) the final time, simply saying "the majority wants it" is not a sound justification.

It is the most smooth process in most bathrooms are actually customized towards the gender that uses them in order to make the process more effective for each gender.
As most people don't like to stand around in restrooms each type is designed to maximize the speed and ease of restroom usage.
Urinals make it quicker for men to get in and out at a steady pace, keeping traffic smooth and streamlined on their end, where as women get extra stalls so they do not have to wait as long. This also speeds up the rate of use. To force men to have stalls would actually slow them down forcing a bottleneck in bathrooms. Public restrooms usually have limited entrances and exits so forcing everyone into one giant room could cause a massive traffic jam at high traffic periods.

There lies the logic.

[Threlizdun]

It is the most smooth process in most bathrooms are actually customized towards the gender that uses them in order to make the process more effective for each gender.
As most people don't like to stand around in restrooms each type is designed to maximize the speed and ease of restroom usage.
Urinals make it quicker for men to get in and out at a steady pace, keeping traffic smooth and streamlined on their end, where as women get extra stalls so they do not have to wait as long. This also speeds up the rate of use. To force men to have stalls would actually slow them down forcing a bottleneck in bathrooms. Public restrooms usually have limited entrances and exits so forcing everyone into one giant room could cause a massive traffic jam at high traffic periods.

There lies the logic.

Your butthurt is of less importance than making public restrooms effective.

Or you could, you know, have urinals and stalls in a room with more than one entrance and exit?

[The Lone Alliance]

Or you could, you know, have urinals and stalls in a room with more than one entrance and exit?

Still would cause massive crowding, and more than one entrance and exit means little. Basically your forcing women to go to a room where half of the toilets are useless for them.

It's still not worth it.

To put it more into perspective, lets talk about handicap access.
That in nature is "Separate but equal".

Putting in ramps for handicapped people still 'denies' them the ability to use stairs.

Aurora Novus's solution is obviously that all stairs should be converted into ramps or elevators, even though both of those tend to take longer to go up for people who aren't handicapped.

[Linux and the X]

So for (hopefully) the final time, simply saying "the majority wants it" is not a sound justification.

Yes, it is. I'll accept, arguendo, that being disallowed from being in a certain room is inherently a small harm. However, the discomfort some feel in sharing a restroom with other genders outweighs the discomfort of being disallowed from a certain room when one is allowed in another effectively identical room. This is magnified on the societal level; there are more people who want a gendered space than those who want to ban them from having a gendered space. Too, a desire to have something has an inherent more importance than a desire for someone else not to have something.

Yes, I am. The mere act of restricting my access to a room is a form of oppression. Just because I am not part of a sociological "minority:" group, doesn't make it any less oppression. If you are having a specific semantical issue with the term "oppression", think restriction instead. The issue is one and the same.

To clarify, you are not oppressed on the basis of minority. Again, I'll agree that you face restriction; but this is an entirely reasonable restriction.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I'm still laughing my ass off at the notion of a restricting freedom to be considered a 'harm.'


In any sense, be it moral or legal.

I could care less about the poor rapists and their restricted rights. They can go right over and fuck themselves dead for all I care about their whining.

It's approximately a similar level of care I give to you.

See this is why I don't argue with the more fucked up of libertarians. All their arguments are this inevitably misogynistic drivel.

Aurora here decided to add race to it, and man oh man am I completely fucking unsurprised. But then again, they are I believe they have mentioned to be someone who advocates what they only describe as communism on a global perspective. An admirable goal to be sure and lordy knows I protest against its vilification in common culture and common parlance.

But I can say, with, may I add, complete surety that it is this sort of social groups don't exist nonsense that I fully expected to hear at some point. And I do believe I have been justified.

Now I'd love to say I'm done here. But I will continue and proceed to continue giving your fucked ideals the mockery they most certainly deserve. If you don't like it, you are welcome to add me to your ignore list. I don't particularly care. You're never going to read Whistling Vivaldi.

But I'm not going anywhere.

[Defensor]

i don't really care if it stays a male restroom and female restroom or gender neutral.

if people have a problem with public restrooms being gender neutral, than don't use the public restrooms...

This.

[Norstal]

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?

You need to open the lavatory door.
You need to pull the seat up.
Do your thing.
You need to put the seat down.
Then you need to unlock the door.

As opposed to.

Do your thing.

And then...that's it.

If your issue is that it's because women can't do urinals therefore urinals are unequal or some shit like that (hint: they can use urinals), then you're essentially saying we shouldn't have any modern technology that can't be used by all people, which is just stupid.

[YellowApple]

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

You need to open the lavatory door.
You need to pull the seat up.
Do your thing.
You need to put the seat down.
Then you need to unlock the door.

As opposed to.

Do your thing.

And then...that's it.

You forgot flushing.

Ew.

[Aurora Novus]

It is the most smooth process in most bathrooms are actually customized towards the gender that uses them in order to make the process more effective for each gender.

One bathroom has urinals, the other has tampon disposal. outside of that, they're the same exact rooms.

How is it that these two features are so incompatible, they need to be separated?

As most people don't like to stand around in restrooms each type is designed to maximize the speed and ease of restroom usage.

Again, they're the exact same room, except one also has urinals. Sometimes female rooms have more stalls, but not usually.

How, in any way, would allowing either gender to go into either room, reduce the efficiency of both rooms?

To force men to have stalls

No one's talking about doing that.

What we're talking about is, literally, just making it so either ex can go into either room.

[Aurora Novus]

Yes, it is. I'll accept,

Holy shit no it's not! This isn't a matter of dispute! It simply, factually, is not! Being in a majority does not make your side the most just, nor the most logical, nor the most moral! It has no bearing on any of those things! To argue this point is to argue the ad populem fallacy.

Look, if you're going to blatantly spit in the face of reality like this, there's no point in furthering our discussion.

but this is an entirely reasonable restriction.

Why? Because, let me guess, the majority wants it?

Bullshit. That is not sound reasoning. The majority could also want to slaughter all homosexuals, that doesn't make it just, nor logical, nor moral.

F you refuse to accept that you are making a fallacious argument, we're done here, but I am tired of repeating the same point to you, and you just not accepting it. You are WRONG. Objectively.

[Aurora Novus]

I'm still laughing my ass off at the notion of a restricting freedom to be considered a 'harm.'

In any sense, be it moral or legal.

Having a lack of choice in what you can and cannot do is negative. It constricts your freedoms. That you cannot see how a loss of freedoms is a harm, means you do not actually value freedom in any sense. In which case, you have no basis to even be complaining about being forced to have unisex rooms in the first place.

I could care less about the poor rapists and their restricted rights. They can go right over and fuck themselves dead for all I care about their whining.

You act like I'm trying to justify rape.

Forget the part where I stated that banning rape is justified, because rape itself is a greater harm?

This is an easy concept to grasp. To have freedom is of value. Therefore to deny freedom is to take something valuable from you. That's harmful. So in order to justify the taking of freedom, one must be trying to counter a greater harm.

See this is why I don't argue with the more fucked up of libertarians. All their arguments are this inevitably misogynistic drivel.

In other words, valuing freedom = misogynistic dribble?

I do't think you even know the meaning of that word. Typical of a neo-feminist.

Now I'd love to say I'm done here. But I will continue and proceed to continue giving your fucked ideals the mockery they most certainly deserve.

So says the person who criticizes the usage of logic?

But I'm not going anywhere.

In other words, you have nothing of value to say, openly criticize those who utilize logic and critical thinking, yet you are going to continue to respond to posters you disagree with, for the sole purpose of harassing and mocking them?

Keep digging that hole.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Having a lack of choice in what you can and cannot do is negative. It constricts your freedoms. That you cannot see how a loss of freedoms is a harm, means you do not actually value freedom in any sense. In which case, you have no basis to even be complaining about being forced to have unisex rooms in the first place.

I think there are reasonable restrictions we place on freedom all the time, and to view them as a harm is facile.

You act like I'm trying to justify rape.

You literally said banning rape is harmful.

Forget the part where I stated that banning rape is justified, because rape itself is a greater harm?

This is an easy concept to grasp. To have freedom is of value. Therefore to deny freedom is to take something valuable from you. That's harmful. So in order to justify the taking of freedom, one must be trying to counter a greater harm.

Actually forget what I said earlier, I don't think you actually know what harm means.

In other words, valuing freedom = misogynistic dribble?

I do't think you even know the meaning of that word. Typical of a neo-feminist.

Fuck I already used the roll smilie.

So says the person who criticizes the usage of logic?

Get over your fucking logic fetish. Seriously.

In other words, you have nothing of value to say, openly criticize those who utilize logic and critical thinking, yet you are going to continue to respond to posters you disagree with, for the sole purpose of harassing and mocking them?

Keep digging that hole.

That sounds about right.

Though I disagree with the notion that there's nothing of value in what I'm saying. But hey! You have an issue with my actions?

Take it up in fucking moderation.

E: Misread your post. I'm not mocking or harassing you. I'm mocking your ideas, for they deserve mockery.

Shockingly, I'm giving actual reasons as to why too!

[Ostroeuropa]

In other words, you have nothing of value to say, openly criticize those who utilize logic and critical thinking, yet you are going to continue to respond to posters you disagree with, for the sole purpose of harassing and mocking them?

Keep digging that hole.

That sounds about right.

Though I disagree with the notion that there's nothing of value in what I'm saying. But hey! You have an issue with my actions?

Take it up in fucking moderation.

You should probably consider what exactly it is you are saying sounds about right. I've only just rejoined the thread, but it sounds like you've just confessed to flamebaiting and/or flaming.

[The Steel Magnolia]

But hey what do I know apparently any restriction of freedom is a harm and injustice and unjustice and unjustified are the same thing and laws can't be based on public demand and everything must be based on some mutilated form of cold 'logic' without acknowledgement of emotions.

Also also also apparently social groups don't exist and we oppress ourselves by asserting our rights!

[The Steel Magnolia]

In other words, you have nothing of value to say, openly criticize those who utilize logic and critical thinking, yet you are going to continue to respond to posters you disagree with, for the sole purpose of harassing and mocking them?

Keep digging that hole.

That sounds about right.

Though I disagree with the notion that there's nothing of value in what I'm saying. But hey! You have an issue with my actions?

Take it up in fucking moderation.

You should probably consider what exactly it is you are saying sounds about right. I've only just rejoined the thread, but it sounds like you've just confessed to flamebaiting and/or flaming.

Well, alright, to be fair I'm mocking their ideas, not them. As far as I'm aware, that's still allowed.

But point taken.