Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Desperate Measures]

It's generally considered offensive. Like the N word. And like the N word, there are some that try to claim the word in order to take the sting out of it.

The situation is the reverse of what it was with the N word. That word started as an insult, and then later has been used by some as an ironic nickname. "Tranny" was until rather recently just a common shorthand, and not everybody will have heard that it has since come to be regarded as an insult.

Thanks for the added knowledge.

[Phocidaea]

That depends on where you are from, if that is offensive, the ones I have encountered have never been offended by a word! Havnt you heard of Tranny Pride?

It's generally considered offensive. Like the N word. And like the N word, there are some that try to claim the word in order to take the sting out of it.

It's only a matter of time, given that you have not only the "n-word" but also "f*g" and "queer" as examples of reclaimed words.

But, of course, they're only reclaimed for members of the group. When "tranny" gets reclaimed, only transsexuals will use it, because it'll still be offensive coming from outsiders. Funny how the world works.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Do you not realize how offensive that word is?

Anyway I'm on my phone so I can't respond easily, but this doesn't take much.

What word, conservative... yeah, im not a fan either

I'm sorry what?

You know perfectly well what I mean, don't be a disingenuous shit.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Trannies. The least you could do is be civil.

That depends on where you are from, if that is offensive, the ones I have encountered have never been offended by a word! Havnt you heard of Tranny Pride?

Get out.

[The Steel Magnolia]

It's generally considered offensive. Like the N word. And like the N word, there are some that try to claim the word in order to take the sting out of it.

The situation is the reverse of what it was with the N word. That word started as an insult, and then later has been used by some as an ironic nickname. "Tranny" was until rather recently just a common shorthand, and not everybody will have heard that it has since come to be regarded as an insult.

That's... actually really not true. The word is insulting, and even trans people who reclaim it are very, very careful in how and when they use it.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Having read all that, you've once again returned to
"It's just obvious." as a response. That's paraphrasing ofcourse. I'm sorry, but that's entirely insufficient. I could offer similar evidence for racism, and in history that's precisely what people did.
It's obvious, we have anecdotes etc.

They also tried their hand at bungled science too, but these days we're wise to that tactic.
I disagree that everything sexist in society is aimed at keeping women down. It comes from expectations to fulfill gender roles.

It's not aimed at keeping women down. The source however is a hatred of femininity. There's a difference.

Men aren't imprisoned more harshly because women are delicate flowers and all that shit, they are imprisoned more harshly because they failed to live up to the male gender role which is all about responsibility and shit.

Men aren't imprisoned more harshly. Women are imprisoned less harshly. There's a difference.

You also didn't bring up the male rape issue. Probably because it's incredibly hard that males being disbelieved about them being raped is aimed at keeping women down. So you disregard it as an example because it doesn't fit your worldview.

Actually it comes out of breaching gender roles because 'weakness' is perceived as a feminine trait and something to be avoided. It fits my worldview just fine.

Ask yourself whats more likely here.
Sexism against men is a side-product of sexism against women AND ALSO there happens to be sexism against men (male-rape victims.)
OR
There is just sexism against men and also sexism against women.

The first obviously.

Yes, this does have the opposite effect of meaning that women are viewed as irresponsible. Thats the point. Sexism inevitably cuts both ways.

Yes, and? The negative effects of the patriarchy on men is not misandry. Merely because it uniquely effects men in a negative manner does not make it misandry.

At this point, i'll say to you that you're sounding religious. Since you are an atheist maybe you'll appreciate that. You havn't come up with anything except anecdotal and "Our books say so."

Really the fact that you describe 40 years of research as equivalent to blind faith says far more about you than it does me.

Do your own damn research. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of sources on the effect of rape culture and rape as a whole.

[Souseiseki]

It's generally considered offensive. Like the N word. And like the N word, there are some that try to claim the word in order to take the sting out of it.

The situation is the reverse of what it was with the N word. That word started as an insult, and then later has been used by some as an ironic nickname. "Tranny" was until rather recently just a common shorthand, and not everybody will have heard that it has since come to be regarded as an insult.

"Nigger is a noun in the English language. The word originated as a neutral term referring to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger ("color black")."

:-)

[Aurora Novus]

Thing is, the fear is not unfounded. Bathroom rapes and beatings against transgender people DO happen.

I was discussing the fear that men and women would have of sharing a bathroom, not the fear of transgender people being treated poorly for being transgendered.

[Aurora Novus]

Jockstraps are not marketed or made for women, and bras and not marketed and made for men.
That is gender discrimination, based upon the physical differences in our bodies.

No, it's not.

It's not discrimination based solely upon gender, it's discrimination based about certain physical qualities. A woman, if she chose, could wear a jock strap, and vice versa. They simply would get no use out of it (well, maybe the man with a bra, if he was large enough).

We go to the bathroom in different ways as well. So a distinction on that would be fair.

Again, not discrimination based upon gender.

Give me one example, anywhere, where it is okay to say "You are of X gender, therefore, you are legally and socially disallowed from Y". Pointing out someone's biologically incapability at something isn't the same as discrimination.

[Aurora Novus]

Aaand I think we're done here.

And if you think that acknowledging the importance of gender is sexist, than fine.

Gender isn't important. You can take my previous example of a woman, who is exactly the same a sa man, just with a female body instead of a male body. How is that grounds to discriminate against them? It's nonsensical. Gender isn't important at all, and should not be given respect in society. There should not be, as you mentioned earlier, female only or male only shelters. That's not different that a brunet only, or blond only shelters. It's needless and only serves to create greater divisions between people in society.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Aaand I think we're done here.

And if you think that acknowledging the importance of gender is sexist, than fine.

Gender isn't important. You can take my previous example of a woman, who is exactly the same a sa man, just with a female body instead of a male body. How is that grounds to discriminate against them? It's nonsensical. Gender isn't important at all, and should not be given respect in society. There should not be, as you mentioned earlier, female only or male only shelters. That's not different that a brunet only, or blond only shelters. It's needless and only serves to create greater divisions between people in society.

See this is the part of genderqueer and/or TERF radscum theory I fucking hate, because it neglects everyone who actually considers gender incredibly important. My gender identity is part of me, it is a fundamental, immutable, inextricable part of who I am. I have gone through strife and misery to validate it, so fuck anyone who says that it isn't important.

Just because gender is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't important.

Also A++ job on completely failing to understand the purpose of shelters.

[Aurora Novus]

I think it's counter-factual to deny there is a very persistent rape culture

I've heard this tossed around a bunched by neo-feminists, and I must say, you either need to use a new term, or accept that a culture of rape simply does not exist. Nearly everyone on society views rape as a bad thing. Victims are treated with a special privilege socially that is completely opposite of "innocent until proven guilty", so much so that we have an issue with false rape allegations. Rape penalties can be longer or harsher than other violent crimes.

Honestly, unless we're talking about the middle east, or the remotest parts of Asia and Africa, I cannot think of a single place on earth which would condone or accept rape in any way. Which completely destroys this idea of "rape culture".

which primarily and nigh-exclusively has negative impacts on women far moreso than men. This is not to say that men are not impacted by this, and there is an underrunning view that men cannot be raped or that it's a joke, and that's a problem. The statistics on male victims of rape are also problematic, both because they conflate prison rape and because they deny the whole made to penetrate thing.

So wait, if you admit the statistics are flawed, and that, as I stated earlier, the gender of the rape victim could possibly be more equal, how can you soundly claim it's a problem "for women more so than men"?

Rape is absolutely a gendered thing however. It is the most fundamental expression of power of another human being there is, and it is used by men primarily to do so.

One gender doing it the most doesn't make it a "gendered" crime. That would imply that it is somehow innately specific to one gender, which it is not. The fact that rape is primarily done by men (according to you) speaks more about our culture, and how we raise men, then about rape as a crime.

It expresses itself in both explicit actions and subtle commentary. Be it catcalls, rape culture, misogynistic jokes; make no mistake. Sexual violence is very, very gendered. It doesn't mean that it doesn't fuck over men too, but that doesn't mean it's misandrist.

When did catcalls and misogynistic jokes suddenly become part of "rape culture" and "sexual violence"?

[Esternial]

Would make it easier to choose if you want a restroom adventure.

[Aurora Novus]

See this is the part of genderqueer and/or TERF radscum theory I fucking hate, because it neglects everyone who actually considers gender incredibly important.

It doesn't "neglect" you, it simply is telling you, get the fuck over it, you shouldn't value it in the first place. This is no different than a white person saying "I value my whiteness".

My gender identity is part of me, it is a fundamental, immutable, inextricable part of who I am. I have gone through strife and misery to validate it, so fuck anyone who says that it isn't important.

My white identity s a part of me, it is a fundamental, immutable, inextricable part of who I am. I have gone through strife and misery to validate it, so fuck anyone who says that isn't important.

Just because gender is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't important.

Yes it does. It's a completely arbitrary social construct and division, that serves no beneficial purpose, and only divides. Not only does that make it not important, it makes it terrible in my eyes, and should be done away with.

There is no reason for which you have justification to judge someone based upon their bodily form, and just because you whine "bu tI've worked so hard to be able to do that", doesn't justify it.

Also A++ job on completely failing to understand the purpose of shelters.

I understand the purpose of shelters, but I disagree with dividing up people based upon sex in shelters. You may say "but they need to be away from people who look like their victimizer", but that's complete hogwash, I can change the context to be about anyone. "My victimizer had blue eyes, ban all blue-eyed people from this shelter!"

We shouldn't feed their irrational fear of someone with a particular body, we should force them to get over it, which you do not do by making shelters exclusionary.

[Aurora Novus]

So no one responded to my challenger earlier...

What reason is there for gender-neutral restrooms? What shortcomings do segregated ones present that could be fixed by throwing everyone in one room?

The problem is the fundamental injustice of segregated restrooms. It is needless restriction. If both sexes are equal, but one room is unequal to the other, then we must make them equal. But if both rooms are equal, then there is no reason to bar one group from the other room, making the division arbitrary and unnecessary.

To therefore enforce such arbitrary and unnecessary division upon people, through legal force or social repercussion, is immoral.

Any restriction requires justification. I contend, as I have contended for the last several pages now, that there is no sound justification for the segregation of washrooms. I have yet to see anyone prove this wrong. The only real arguments that have been put forth are (1) personal preference, (2) social custom, (3) respect, and (4) efficiency. However, the first one is not sound, because personal preference is not, itself, justification to legislate something. The second and third are not sound, because all they do is push the question back. "Why should it have become a social custom in the first place? Why should it be something people expect?" The last one could potentially hod some water, but no one has really made a case for it, and ni fact, what little time it's had as a topic of discussion, seems to support unisex rooms as more efficient.

So in short, it's not that we need justification to make washrooms unisex, it's that they need justification to be exclusionary, and if they don't have it, then there is no just reason to enforce the exclusion of others.

[Imsogone]

I haven't read all the posts, but I think I can get the general gist.

There's the "everything must be equal" crowd
There's the "traditionalist" crowd
There's the "meh" crowd

Each has some validity.

I'm kind of in the middle. Women's restrooms aren't equal. When I go to a ballgame and have to use the facilities, I always find a slow-moving line at the women's room whereas the men's room line is moving pretty much at the speed of a fastball - basically no waiting. When women have to go,we have to go just as urgently as the men, but we have space requirements, because we can't stand and go. We also have privacy requirements that don't seem to effect men. I'm thinking that, in cases of emergency the other gender's rest room should open to all, but I really can't see having nothing but unisex rest rooms without facilities for things that require privacy being available (really guys, do you want to be privy to changing tampons and personally, I can't imagine any woman wanting to tend to tampons and sanitary napkins with men other than husbands present. Also, the women's restroom has been a sanctuary to which pairs of us go to compare notes about the men we're with - you can't take that away from us! In addition, I, as a woman, don't really want to watch literal dick-waving competitions.

[New England and The Maritimes]

In addition, I, as a woman, don't really want to watch literal dick-waving competitions.

Jesus, is that what women think I'm doing in there?

[Aurora Novus]

When women have to go,we have to go just as urgently as the men, but we have space requirements, because we can't stand and go.

So add more stalls. Problem solved.

We also have privacy requirements that don't seem to effect men.

1) "Privacy requirements"?
2) How does adding in men change this?

I'm thinking that, in cases of emergency the other gender's rest room should open to all, but I really can't see having nothing but unisex rest rooms without facilities for things that require privacy being available (really guys, do you want to be privy to changing tampons and personally, I can't imagine any woman wanting to tend to tampons and sanitary napkins with men other than husbands present.

Why should they feel uncomfortable, simply because someone who doesn't look like them is present somewhere else in the same room, doing their own thing?

Also, the women's restroom has been a sanctuary to which pairs of us go to compare notes about the men we're with - you can't take that away from us! In addition, I, as a woman, don't really want to watch literal dick-waving competitions.

...tough shit? Personal preference is not a grounds for legislation.

If I, as a woman, want to walk into a mans washroom for whatever reason (cleaner, quicker, holding a conversation with someone, ect.), there is no justified reason to bar me from doing so, especially if the facilities are the same. Vice versa as well. Your personal preference should not be grounds to oppress me and restrict me from doing so.

[Imsogone]

When women have to go,we have to go just as urgently as the men, but we have space requirements, because we can't stand and go.

So add more stalls. Problem solved.

We also have privacy requirements that don't seem to effect men.

1) "Privacy requirements"?
2) How does adding in men change this?

I'm thinking that, in cases of emergency the other gender's rest room should open to all, but I really can't see having nothing but unisex rest rooms without facilities for things that require privacy being available (really guys, do you want to be privy to changing tampons and personally, I can't imagine any woman wanting to tend to tampons and sanitary napkins with men other than husbands present.

Why should they feel uncomfortable, simply because someone who doesn't like them is present somewhere else in the same room, doing their own thing?

Also, the women's restroom has been a sanctuary to which pairs of us go to compare notes about the men we're with - you can't take that away from us! In addition, I, as a woman, don't really want to watch literal dick-waving competitions.

...tough shit? Personal preference is not a grounds for legislation.

If I, as a woman, want to walk into a mans washroom for whatever reason (cleaner, quicker, holding a conversation with someone, ect.), there is no justified reason to bar me from doing so, especially if the facilities are the same. Vice versa as well. Your personal preference should not be grounds to oppress me and restrict me from doing so.

Nor did I say it should restrict you. I simply stated that options for those needing privacy should be available. Your desire for the freedom to go into whatever restroom you please should not restrict my desire for privacy.

[Aurora Novus]

Nor did I say it should restrict you. I simply stated that options for those needing privacy should be available. Your desire for the freedom to go into whatever restroom you please should not restrict my desire for privacy.

Ah, but you DID say it should restrict me.

By attempting to validate your own desire for privacy and sex-segregated washrooms, you are inherently denying me access to a particular room. This is why simply adding gender-neutral rooms in addition to segregated rooms doesn't work, because it does not actually solve the fundamental injustice of segregated rooms in the first place.

So, seeing as you are in support of segregated rooms (at least, based on all the complaints you raised), what is your justification for denying a woman access to a man's washroom, and vice versa?

[Seshephe]

Gender isn't important. You can take my previous example of a woman, who is exactly the same a sa man, just with a female body instead of a male body. How is that grounds to discriminate against them? It's nonsensical. Gender isn't important at all, and should not be given respect in society. There should not be, as you mentioned earlier, female only or male only shelters. That's not different that a brunet only, or blond only shelters. It's needless and only serves to create greater divisions between people in society.

See this is the part of genderqueer and/or TERF radscum theory I fucking hate, because it neglects everyone who actually considers gender incredibly important. My gender identity is part of me, it is a fundamental, immutable, inextricable part of who I am. I have gone through strife and misery to validate it, so fuck anyone who says that it isn't important.

Just because gender is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't important.

Also A++ job on completely failing to understand the purpose of shelters.

Wait... gender... a social construct? To some extent yes but does anyone seriously consider gender to be completely a social construct? Because that's verifiably bullshit. Just saying...

[Faolinn]

Gender is far from a social construct, but our social definition or understanding thereof is flawed.

[Imsogone]

Nor did I say it should restrict you. I simply stated that options for those needing privacy should be available. Your desire for the freedom to go into whatever restroom you please should not restrict my desire for privacy.

Ah, but you DID say it should restrict me.

By attempting to validate your own desire for privacy and sex-segregated washrooms, you are inherently denying me access to a particular room. This is why simply adding gender-neutral rooms in addition to segregated rooms doesn't work, because it does not actually solve the fundamental injustice of segregated rooms in the first place.

So, seeing as you are in support of segregated rooms (at least, based on all the complaints you raised), what is your justification for denying a woman access to a man's washroom, and vice versa?

I never supported denying you access to the men's room, nor did I deny men access to the women's room. I merely stated that I wanted options for people who are backwards and desirous of privacy - like me.

[Saruhan]

Is this like a one stall with a urinal arraignment? Or like a bathroom "complex" sort of thing?

[Aurora Novus]

I never supported denying you access to the men's room, nor did I deny men access to the women's room. I merely stated that I wanted options for people who are backwards and desirous of privacy - like me.

Okay, we're in a topic about whether or not sex-segregated rooms should be made to be unisex.

You say you're not opposed to this, but you still want an option for privacy.

...what can that possibly look like, other than sex-segregated rooms? Individual rooms?

(Actually I generally like the single room family washrooms that sometimes pop up in public places, but that's besides the point).