Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Ya, thats what it seems like.

[Aurora Novus]

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

You are missing my point.

I agree that there are reasonable restrictions.

Listen closely. This is what I am trying to get across. Freedom is something of objective value. To deny someone freedom then is to deny them something valuable, and therefore, harmful. In order to justify the denial of freedom then, we must be doing so to prevent some greater harm. This is why, in cases where the denial of freedom is unjustified, we considered it a gross violation of rights. Because we recognize, consciously or otherwise, that the only time is is okay to take freedoms away, is when there is sound reason to.

In short, all freedom has value, to deny freedom is to refuse someone that value, therefore, all restrictions need to be preventing some greater harm. Do you understand now?

You literally said banning rape is harmful.

Yes, I did.

You missed the part where I said it is justified however, because banning it prevents a greater harm; rape.

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

Get over your fucking logic fetish. Seriously.

No. Logic is the objective system of argumentation. I will not sit here an appease your ignorance, by validating your belief that somehow, it is justifiable to argue without logic. It's not a "logic fetish" it's called being a good debater. Something which is apparently beyond you.

If the entire basis of your argument at this put, is the denial of logic, then you have no credibility to comment on the issue what so ever, and you would beter spend your time elsewhere. Intellectual discussions don't need your brand of anti-intellectualism.

That sounds about right.

Though I disagree with the notion that there's nothing of value in what I'm saying.

"I disregard and insult those who utilize logic and proper reasoning, but hey, my claims have value too you know!"

But hey! You have an issue with my actions?

Take it up in fucking moderation.

Very well then. I would have hoped you would listen to reason, but since you seem so hellbent on disreputable behavior...

[The Steel Magnolia]

You are missing my point.

I agree that there are reasonable restrictions.

Listen closely. This is what I am trying to get across. Freedom is something of objective value. To deny someone freedom then is to deny them something valuable, and therefore, harmful. In order to justify the denial of freedom then, we must be doing so to prevent some greater harm. This is why, in cases where the denial of freedom is unjustified, we considered it a gross violation of rights. Because we recognize, consciously or otherwise, that the only time is is okay to take freedoms away, is when there is sound reason to.

In short, all freedom has value, to deny freedom is to refuse someone that value, therefore, all restrictions need to be preventing some greater harm. Do you understand now?

No I understand perfectly what you said. I just think the notion of viewing any and every restriction of freedom as harmful is facile. Even if you later say that it's in the service of the greater good as if it means something.

Yes, I did.

You missed the part where I said it is justified however, because banning it prevents a greater harm; rape.

No I saw that.

No. Logic is the objective system of argumentation. I will not sit here an appease your ignorance, by validating your belief that somehow, it is justifiable to argue without logic. It's not a "logic fetish" it's called being a good debater. Something which is apparently beyond you.

Which, for the thousandth time, is not actually applied when referring to public policy. Thankfully.

If the entire basis of your argument at this put, is the denial of logic, then you have no credibility to comment on the issue what so ever, and you would beter spend your time elsewhere. Intellectual discussions don't need your brand of anti-intellectualism.

Not really it's just that you're seemingly demanding, forgive me if I'm wrong, that logic is the only thing that should be considered in policy-making.

Which is inane.

"I disregard and insult those who utilize logic and proper reasoning, but hey, my claims have value too you know!"

Where have I disregarded or insulted you?

[Aurora Novus]

But hey what do I know apparently any restriction of freedom is a harm and injustice

I did not say that. I said it was a harm, not that they are always an injustice. It can and is often justifiable in restricting freedoms, to prevent greater harms.

and unjustice and unjustified are the same thing

Well, since the dictionary disagrees with you, yeah.

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.

emotions being an invalid argument =/= not taking them into account. It just means they alone do not justify something. And of COURSE public policy can be based on just emotions. It would be based on an inherently irrational premise, but it could happen. Worse things have.

You are either consistently misreading me, or intentionally ignoring what I am saying. What I sam saying is whether or not the majority wants it, whether or not public policy has in the past been based on pleasing the greatest number of people, that does not mean that either of those things are inherently logical, just, moral, or above all, sound justifications in a debate.

Also also also apparently social groups don't exist

Considering they are all self-made, illusions of society? Yeah.

and we oppress ourselves by asserting our rights!

No one has the right to segregate.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I did not say that. I said it was a harm, not that they are always an injustice. It can and is often justifiable in restricting freedoms, to prevent greater harms.

Conceeded.

Well, since the dictionary disagrees with you, yeah.

This was rebuffed literally 20 pages ago. You haven't changed your argument since.

emotions being an invalid argument =/= not taking them into account. It just means they alone do not justify something. And of COURSE public policy can be based on just emotions. It would be based on an inherently irrational premise, but it could happen. Worse things have.

I'm sorry, why is irrationality or emotions in public policy a negative thing?

You are either consistently misreading me, or intentionally ignoring what I am saying. What I sam saying is whether or not the majority wants it, whether or not public policy has in the past been based on pleasing the greatest number of people, that does not mean that either of those things are inherently logical, just, moral, or above all, sound justifications in a debate.

You've yet to prove why any of those are necessarily positive factors in policy-making. Specifically the first, but regardless. Legislation and policy isn't a debate, you know.

Considering they are all self-made, illusions of society? Yeah.

Self made illusions exist bro.

No one has the right to segregate.

A damn lie and you know it.

[Aurora Novus]

No I understand perfectly what you said. I just think the notion of viewing any and every restriction of freedom as harmful is facile. Even if you later say that it's in the service of the greater good as if it means something.

So you oppose the claim that freedom itself has intrinsic value?

Which, for the thousandth time, is not actually applied when referring to public policy. Thankfully.

Which, for the thousandth time, is irrelevant. That doesn't make it logical or just, or moral, which is what we are discussing here. Simply saying "public policy doesn't work like that" doesn't refute the logic of the claim; it simply means the way we go about making public policy is illogical.

Not really it's just that you're seemingly demanding, forgive me if I'm wrong, that logic is the only thing that should be considered in policy-making.

Which is inane.

No it's not. The opposite of logic is irrationality.

You honestly think people should be basing decisions which not only affect themselves, but the general public, on irrationality? On a lack of critical thought?

Where have I disregarded or insulted you?

Your past several posts have offered nothing to the discussion, and have been nothing more than you criticizing me for my usage of logic, without any rational basis. It's simply been you posting purposefully charged phrases, with no substance to them, for the sole purpose of eliciting a response out of me.

As someone else sated, even if you don't intend it, the way in which you are saying things come across as personal insults, and not logical refutations of claims. I'm not the only one who sees it.

[Kazarogkai]

Heck no, then we would have freaking lines coming out of all the bathrooms I am happy being a make and not having to worry about a line for the mens bathroom, Women for some reason like hogging the place and I refuse to put up with that in the name of all this equality bull.



GIVE ME SEPARATION OR GIVE ME DEATH

[Aurora Novus]

This was rebuffed literally 20 pages ago. You haven't changed your argument since.

False. It was never rebutted. When the dictionary definitions clearly use the terms to define one another, yes, they mean the same thing.

Do you dispute they did this?

I'm sorry, why is irrationality or emotions in public policy a negative thing?

Emotions and irrationality are not the same thing.

The reason irrationality is wrong should be obvious; it is a lack of critical thinking. Irrationality does not care for truth or justice, fairness, human wellbeing, ect. It is, well, irrational. Without thought.

That's bad.

You've yet to prove why any of those are necessarily positive factors in policy-making. Specifically the first, but regardless.

Logic is imperative, because logic shows critical thought, and is the process to find the best possible outcome. Logic is objective, and not biased. This is the basis of nearly everything in society. Claims require a lack of bias and critical thought in courts, science, education, ect. Logic is the basis of all claim making. Of all critical thought.

Justice should be obvious, as justice is defined is morally good or righteous. Unless you think it is okay for society to embrace unjust things. In which case, what's the argument for making rape illegal then?

Morality, see the above. Trying to bring about the greatest good is important, if we want to have a good society.

Do you dispute that the best possible human society, is the kind of society we should be pushing for?

Self made illusions exist bro.

Self made illusions, by virtue of being illusions, do not exist. The best you can say is "they exist to me", but that does not mean they exist in any sense of objectivity. Someone can hallucinate that there is a giant flying squid about to devour them, and it may seem real to them, but does it actually exist in reality? No, it doesn't.

Existence is not contingent on perception. It exists separate from perception.

A damn lie and you know it.

Not at all. No one has the right to segregate. All segregation require justification.

[The Steel Magnolia]

The fact that no one's actually being oppressed by the existence of gendered bathrooms (which is NOT the same as a lack of gender neutral washrooms) kinda nips that whole separation argument in the bud really.

[Aurora Novus]

The fact that no one's actually being oppressed by the existence of gendered bathrooms (which is NOT the same as a lack of gender neutral washrooms) kinda nips that whole separation argument in the bud really.

This is false however, as the segregation itself is a form of oppression. Saying "men/women only" means you are banning people, either through social or legal means, or both, from entering that room.

This means, both genders are oppressed, in that they cannot enter the other genders room.

Now you may say "so make it/it already is so that a man can walk into a woman's bathroom, and vice versa, with no legal or social repercussions." However, if this becomes true, they cease to be segregated in any meaningful sense of the word. They are no longer "male/female only" rooms.

[The Steel Magnolia]

False. It was never rebutted. When the dictionary definitions clearly use the terms to define one another, yes, they mean the same thing.

Do you dispute they did this?

You really going to make me trawl through the thread to find the posts? Come on, I know you read them.

Or, apparently, didn't.

Emotions and irrationality are not the same thing.

The reason irrationality is wrong should be obvious; it is a lack of critical thinking. Irrationality does not care for truth or justice, fairness, human wellbeing, ect. It is, well, irrational. Without thought.

That's bad.

Neither, apparently, do you.

I'm just saying that you can't justify every piece of public policy with a pure rationality argument. Nor should you.

Logic is imperative, because logic shows critical thought, and is the process to find the best possible outcome. Logic is objective, and not biased. This is the basis of nearly everything in society. Claims require a lack of bias and critical thought in courts, science, education, ect. Logic is the basis of all claim making. Of all critical thought.

Note that's not actually proof.

Justice should be obvious, as justice is defined is morally good or righteous. Unless you think it is okay for society to embrace unjust things. In which case, what's the argument for making rape illegal then?

The fact you think gendered bathrooms are comparable to rape is telling.

Morality, see the above. Trying to bring about the greatest good is important, if we want to have a good society.

Fortunately that depends on compelling state interest, not your ideas of what the greater good is.

Do you dispute that the best possible human society, is the kind of society we should be pushing for?

I dispute yours most certainly is.

Self made illusions, by virtue of being illusions, do not exist. The best you can say is "they exist to me", but that does not mean they exist in any sense of objectivity. Someone can hallucinate that there is a giant flying squid about to devour them, and it may seem real to them, but does it actually exist in reality? No, it doesn't.

Honey. Really.

Stop trying.

Not at all. No one has the right to segregate. All segregation require justification.

Prove it.

[The Steel Magnolia]

The fact that no one's actually being oppressed by the existence of gendered bathrooms (which is NOT the same as a lack of gender neutral washrooms) kinda nips that whole separation argument in the bud really.

This is false however, as the segregation itself is a form of oppression. Saying "men/women only" means you are banning people, either through social or legal means, or both, from entering that room.

As someone who's experienced oppression, let me tell you.

It's actually not oppression.

This means, both genders are oppressed, in that they cannot enter the other genders room.

Legally they can.

Now you may say "so make it/it already is so that a man can walk into a woman's bathroom, and vice versa, with no legal or social repercussions." However, if this because true, they cease to be segregated in any meaningful sense of the word. They are no longer "male/female only" rooms.

They aren't currently.

[Aurora Novus]

You really going to make me trawl through the thread to find the posts? Come on, I know you read them.

Or, apparently, didn't.

I read every post.

Now answer my question. If the definitions use the terms to define each other, they mean the same thing. Do you dispute this? If not, do you dispute that the definitions used the each other to define themselves? BEcause I am more han happy to go back and quote my post proving this. I've already done it once, just a few pages ago.

Neither, apparently, do you.

I'm just saying that you can't justify every piece of public policy with a pure rationality argument. Nor should you.

Give me one situation where irrationality is acceptable, anywhere. You're promoting the very opposite of an enlightened society. Your discouraging critical thought and analysis, and promoting dogmatism and poor behavior.

Note that's not actually proof.

What would constitute "proof" to you? You asked a moral question. I provided a moral argument. That's the "proof".

The fact you think gendered bathrooms are comparable to rape is telling.

Don't avoid the question

If you do not think justice is a value society should hold, what is your bass for outlawing rape?

Fortunately that depends on compelling state interest, not your ideas of what the greater good is.

It's not about "my ideas" or "my personal desires".

It's about what's logical.

Again, logic is an objective system. It's not subjective.

I dispute yours most certainly is.

On what basis? your personal preference, or do you actually have a logical counter-argument?

Honey. Really.

Stop trying.

In other words, no counter-argument?

I'm not surprised at this point.

Not at all. No one has the right to segregate. All segregation require justification.

Prove it.[/quote]

Well objectively speaking, rights are a myth. A human concept. They do not exist in any form of objectivity.

But beyond that, if we're discussing the idea of morality as it pertains to rights, all arguments which would restrict someone require justification, as they seek to take things out of their natural, free state.

Case in point: The natural state is coexistence. Segregation of society is a forced changed to the natural state. In an argument, it is the positive argument, whereas coexistence is the negative side. The positive side always has the burden of proof.

Finally, we've already seen, based on history, that no, one does not have a right to segregate without justification. again, the civil rights era.

[Vallakova]

Absolutely not, a perfect environment for RAPE aside,

Could you imagine??? Man and woman act completely different in the public restroom.

I've worked at plenty of places where I had to clean BOTH bathrooms and let me tell you, in the mens room their is always mud all over the floors and almost every paper towel misses the can, and if you think that's bad you should check out the LADIES ROOM! I'm talking bloody tampons stuck in the toilet halfway hanging out of the trash, pink toilet paper hanging out of the can (and no its not rose scented, its pink for a different reason), one time I had to clean blood off the toilet rim itself because a germaphobic chick apparently decided that instead of sitting down she would hover while she peed and menstruated everywhere it was absolutely disgusting. Could you imagine being a guy who has to take a serious dump and all the stalls are taken except the one with the bloody seat??? FUCK THAT SHIT!!! Also did you ever stop to think about how differently men and women act in the bathroom? I mean its not all girls in the mirror putting on lipstick and girl talking but that is sort of a sacred space for women. Would you really like to have the silent shit your taking (cause as all men know we shit in silence, and beside the pee hitting the toilet water, flushes and groaning, and yes the occasional jackass whose not on the same page as the rest of us and answers his phone with a great big," Well hello there!," while taking a shit, not cool by the way cause it freaks the person in the stall next to you out!) be interrupted by a group of gaggeling girls plunging into the restroom, cause admit it ladies you travel in packs? Also women, do you REALY want to sit in a stall between two men who are pounding out heavy gas and shit? What about the smell? men have a bathroom stink and it stinks. women have a bathroom stink and it stinks. They are two completely different kind of stinks too, so could you imagine COMBINING THEM???? This is a super bad idea. I get that it might help transgender people and all, but damn is all this nasty annoyance worth it, and frankly women, who do you think is going to enforce the pee on the seat rule??? your gonna have a wet ass one way or the other cause even if you don't sit in pee, You will probably just end up falling in cause we all know that most women for some retarded reason NEVER CHECK TO SEE IF THE SEAT IS DOWN!I think bathrooms should stay separate,

[Aurora Novus]

As someone who's experienced oppression, let me tell you.

It's actually not oppression.

"You call that oppression? Ha! I've experienced REAL oppression, so you obviously have not experienced oppression, because it's no where near as bad as MY problems!"

Small evils are still evils, even if greater evils exist.

Legally they can.

Not so in many places.

And you've ignored the social component as well.

They aren't currently.

Yes, they are, hence the topic of discussion, and the complaint by the trans community for unisex rooms. The fact that people are still legally and socially reprimanded for entering the "wrong" bathroom, is evidence that they are not desegregated.

[Aurora Novus]

Absolutely not, a perfect environment for RAPE aside,

This argument has been shot down so many times already. What is your justification for making this claim?

Could you imagine??? Man and woman act completely different in the public restroom.

And? Are they incapable of acting differently within the same room?

Also, don't generalize the sexes.

-snip-

The rest of this can be summarized as "men and women in the bathroom are gross!"

I'm sure people of the same sex don't like to deal with it as it is. What makes the opposite sex so special?

[Vallakova]

because it adds to the grossness. like I have said I have cleaned a lot of bathrooms and your right they are bad enough already as same sex SO WHY MAKE THEM WORSE?

[Aurora Novus]

because it adds to the grossness. like I have said I have cleaned a lot of bathrooms and your right they are bad enough already as same sex SO WHY MAKE THEM WORSE?

Let me ask you this:

If you have to clean both the men's and women's restrooms, as separate rooms, then you end up having to clean up the same amount of mess as if the two rooms were combined into one room, correct?

[Ostroeuropa]

because it adds to the grossness. like I have said I have cleaned a lot of bathrooms and your right they are bad enough already as same sex SO WHY MAKE THEM WORSE?

I'd like to point out that shit and piss, regardless of the gender of the source, is gross anyway. If anything a level of social pressure would be placed on people since they'd want to save face in front of the others and be less messy.
Though i'd also argue they shouldn't feel that way at all, the argument that it'd get messier or grosser is just a stupid one.

[Defensor]

Is there seriously an argument going on over this? Hahaha! NSG must be running out of material Who cares!? It's a fucking bathroom!

[Ostroeuropa]

Is there seriously an argument going on over this? Hahaha! NSG must be running out of material Who cares!? It's a fucking bathroom!

The nature in which society deals with the extremely basic machinations of life tells you a great deal about it.
If you want to know a culture, find out how they gather food, how and what they eat, how and when and with whom they fuck, and how they shit and piss. Everything else is sort of tacked on to those. Most of society is sort of extrapolated from the desire to optimize these tasks. The de-segregation of the bathroom would be an extremely radical and positive change for society, as one of our most recurring and necessary functions would no longer be gender segregated.
At the point where everyone eats with the opposite sex (in the west.), where opinions on sexuality are becomming more liberal and breaking down, and women are now in the work place (Gathering food), bathroom habits are strikingly backward for the times.

[Defensor]

Is there seriously an argument going on over this? Hahaha! NSG must be running out of material Who cares!? It's a fucking bathroom!

The nature in which society deals with the extremely basic machinations of life tells you a great deal about it.
If you want to know a culture, find out how they gather food, how and what they eat, how and when and with whom they fuck, and how they shit and piss. Everything else is sort of tacked on to those.

Hmmm, I can see where you're getting at. But let me ask you this...will society be impacted in a big way forever if this happens or not?

[Aurora Novus]

Hmmm, I can see where you're getting at. But let me ask you this...will society be impacted in a big way forever if this happens or not?

Not really.

Again, no one here is claiming this to be the evil of evils, or a great harm. I've stated repeatedly it's a minor sin at most.

But it is the topic of conversation...so we're talking about it.

Consequently, coming in here and saying "It's not a big deal, so stop talking about it" seems counter-intuitive.

[Ostroeuropa]

The nature in which society deals with the extremely basic machinations of life tells you a great deal about it.
If you want to know a culture, find out how they gather food, how and what they eat, how and when and with whom they fuck, and how they shit and piss. Everything else is sort of tacked on to those.

Hmmm, I can see where you're getting at. But let me ask you this...will society be impacted in a big way forever if this happens or not?

I think it will.
The desegregation of the last major activity of human affairs would leave us with only an ever-dwindling sexuality related sexism, and an increasingly no longer tolerated workplace sexism, segregated bathrooms are curiously put up with for some reason.
Having the symbolic presence of segregation in this does a lot to reinforce gender roles and ideas like "You have to have friends of the same sex." and such.
If we remove bathroom segregation, then the only thing most people will counter in day to day lives that is gendered in nature will be ...well, thats just it.
They wont encounter it.
That would be a HUGE step forward in terms of abolishing the imaginary boundaries we build.

[Vallakova]

Absolutely not, a perfect environment for RAPE aside,

This argument has been shot down so many times already. What is your justification for making this claim?

Could you imagine??? Man and woman act completely different in the public restroom.

And? Are they incapable of acting differently within the same room?

Also, don't generalize the sexes.

-snip-

The rest of this can be summarized as "men and women in the bathroom are gross!"

I'm sure people of the same sex don't like to deal with it as it is. What makes the opposite sex so special?

say its the middle of the night at a 24/7 store in a smaller town and its graveyard shift, so very little traffic guy goes in waits , girl comes in boom rape, because of the lateness of the hour the likelihood of another person coming in before the rape is done not so good. Stranger things have happened.

Why no generalize them? we are speaking of the general activities that occur in their each respective bathrooms are we not? its not specific people that would be using the restroom but GENERALLY EVERYBODY so generalizing the sexes is completely called for. Also like I said most of us just act differently in the bathroom than the other sex, also know a lot about this too, I am gay so I've kicked it with chicks in plenty of female bathrooms, such as my friend Christina for example I had to hold her peruse (fuck if I know why) because she swore she needed two hands to put on eyeliner, and one time my friend Wendy got soo drunk that I had to hold her hair while she threw up. So yes most girls chit chat in the bathroom, not all of them do, but most of them do, because I've noticed that most women DON'T GO TO THE BATHROOM ALONE, they usually use the buddy system for some reason. and I am a man so i can tell you that I HAVE NEVER MET A GUY WHO WOULD JUST LOVE to hear you tell a personal story while he takes a shit, most won't even talk at the urinal, except for the occasional, ,"I'll be outside", or something to that affect. sure they might quickly finish a conversation while walking in, but they aren't talking while they do the deed, and they are definitely not just "hanging" around by the mirror chit chatting. As a matter of fact I think the ONLY place I have ever seen guys do that in a bathroom was at a gay bar.

SO YES THEY ARE incapable of acting differently in the same BATHroom.

And as far as it being bad enough already with its nasty smells and grossness, YES THAT IS MY POINT IT IS BAD ENOUGH ALREADY! WHY MAKE IT WORSE BY ADDING TO THE VARIETY OF STINK???