Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Revolutionarily]

I also am sure people will not feel as comfortable going due to this.

I am sick and tired of seeing this trash constantly thrown about.

Is this honestly the best you people can do? Honestly? Because this is the only argument I repeatedly see brought up. "It doesn't fit my personal taste. It makes me feel uncomfortable. Baaawwwww." How can anyone take this seriously?

Personal taste is not a grounds to legislate something, especially segregation.

Well isn't ones comfort the reason they would make gender neutral bathrooms in the first place?

[Arcturus Novus]

Nah, communists are pretty cool in my book.
Anyways, your argument?

My argument on what? You mean your question that you don't see how we could do it?

Well, that's not necessarily even relevant. Even if something isn't possible, or would be very difficult to achieve, that doesn't make it's opposite good.

Beyond that though, I'm not seeing how it would be a problem. We got rid of all the "whites only" and "coloured" segregated fountains, bathrooms, and other facilities in the civil rights era. This would hardly be as difficult as that. Just remove gender specific signs, and knock down some walls. Most male and female bathrooms are right next to one another anyway. It wouldn't take much effort at all to combine them into the same room.

I just don't think the general public would go for it nowadays. Times have changed, so that we don't really have the same gender barrier as we used to.

[Aurora Novus]

I am sick and tired of seeing this trash constantly thrown about.

Is this honestly the best you people can do? Honestly? Because this is the only argument I repeatedly see brought up. "It doesn't fit my personal taste. It makes me feel uncomfortable. Baaawwwww." How can anyone take this seriously?

Personal taste is not a grounds to legislate something, especially segregation.

Well isn't ones comfort the reason they would make gender neutral bathrooms in the first place?

It isn't my argument, no.

My argument lies with the fundamental injustice of segregated washrooms. If there's no justification for it, it shouldn't exist. If you want them to exist, but not be enforced, then it's not even rally segregates to begin with.

[The New One]

Do women really want to hear some 400 pound dude taking a dump three feet away from them>?

[Aurora Novus]

I just don't think the general public would go for it nowadays. Times have changed, so that we don't really have the same gender barrier as we used to.

What do you mean, "the general public wouldn't go for it"? You mean they wouldn't approve of it, because it makes them uncomfortable/doesn't conform with their person tastes?

See the quote in the post above yours.

[Souseiseki]

Do women really want to hear some 400 pound dude taking a dump three feet away from them>?

Do men really want to hear some 400 pound dude taking a dump three feet away from them>?

[Aurora Novus]

Do women whites really want to hear some 400 pound dude black taking a dump three feet away from them>?

[The New One]

Do women whites really want to hear some 400 pound dude black taking a dump three feet away from them>?

Racism is gross...so is a 400 pound dude taking a tump one meter away from a woman. Why can't people have a little luxury?

Do women really want to hear some 400 pound dude taking a dump three feet away from them>?

Do men really want to hear some 400 pound dude taking a dump three feet away from them>?

No...no we don't.

[Rio Cana]

But if they built these public restrooms to be used by many people at once, even if they have stalls with doors and sides going all the way from the floor to the cieling, they will be asking for trouble.

Care to elaborate? How woud making all public restrooms desegregated be "asking for trouble"?

If its just one toilet in a small room with a door which you can lock then no problem. If its a large room (which has one door entrance) with half of that large room divided into multiple stalls each with a toilet then you are asking for problems. Guys can enter the restroom and just lurk just outside the multiple stalls while they wait to abuse some lady. Of course, you could have someone working in there (you better do a security check on them) or have cameras just outside the stalls.

[Icesteam]

Whatever, but this means longer lines.

[Sibirsky]

Do women really want to hear some 400 pound dude taking a dump three feet away from them>?

Do men really want to hear some 400 pound dude taking a dump three feet away from them>?

No.

[Sibirsky]

Whatever, but this means longer lines.

Lines should not be a major issue, most of the time.

[Aurora Novus]

Racism is gross...so is a 400 pound dude taking a tump one meter away from a woman. Why can't people have a little luxury?

Because subjective desires are not a grounds to ban something.

I'm sure there are some people who don't find racism gross. To them, proposing that they should have to be in the same bathroom as a black man, is gross.

How do we judge who should get their way? Personal taste is obviously not sufficient, which is why, as I've stated repeatedly, your personal desires are not grounds to legislate something.

[Sibirsky]

Care to elaborate? How woud making all public restrooms desegregated be "asking for trouble"?

If its just one toilet in a small room with a door which you can lock then no problem. If its a large room (which has one door entrance) with half of that large room divided into multiple stalls each with a toilet then you are asking for problems. Guys can enter the restroom and just lurk just outside the multiple stalls while they wait to abuse some lady. Of course, you could have someone working in there (you better do a security check on them) or have cameras just outside the stalls.

Because?

Oh right. All males are what again? Oh that's right! We're all evil rape machines!

[The Rich Port]

No. In this case, I think "separate-but-equal" better serves society. Then again, maybe I'm just being misogynistic/mysandrous (sp?).

No, just impossibly ignorant, considering "separate-but-equal" has no precedent of not being complete bullshit.

I honestly don't see the point of having separate bathrooms, considering married couples are bound to share their private ones in some way and it eliminates the pointless concept of a urinal.

Unless there is a correlation between an increase in female-on-male rape and gender neutral bathrooms, in which case GOD YES.

[Aurora Novus]

Care to elaborate? How woud making all public restrooms desegregated be "asking for trouble"?

If its just one toilet in a small room with a door which you can lock then no problem. If its a large room (which has one door entrance) with half of that large room divided into multiple stalls each with a toilet then you are asking for problems. Guys can enter the restroom and just lurk just outside the multiple stalls while they wait to abuse some lady.

1) What prevents them from doing that now? Obviously rapists and assaulters don't respect the signs currently.
2) Not all rapists and assaulters are of the opposite sex.
3) With a higher concentration of people entering the room at any given time, would that not reduce the risk of rape and assault, due to an increased chance of being discovered?
4) With people who are not your desired victim type entering the same room, would that not also deter someone from choosing a bathroom to assault someone, as it no longer guarantees them their desired victim? Or consequently, would it not make them have to potentially wait longer, thereby increasing the chance they would be discovered beforehand?

[Dusk_Kittens]

1. Ok if its not based on subjective feelings then whats it based on? surely you feel that gendered toilets are injustice which is why it bothers you? What is an objective injustice?

What makes something an injustice is when doing it is not justified. That should be obvious.

Emphatically wrong. "Not justified" = "unjustified" = "lacking justification" =/= "injustice" = "a privation of justice" = "unfairness" --- which means that you're Equivocating (and, I suspect, intentionally so).

"Justification" =/= "Justice"

[Aurora Novus]

"Justification" =/= "Justice"

Yes, it does. for something to be just, it must necessarily require sound justification.

You say something nasty to me, so I brutally rape and murder you, and burn your house down with your family inside.

Was this an injustice? If so, why?

Could it be perhaps...because my actions were unwarranted/too extreme given the circumstances?

In other words...unjustifed?

[Dusk_Kittens]

"Justification" =/= "Justice"

Yes, it does. for something to be just, it must necessarily require sound justification.

You say something nasty to me, so I brutally rape and murder you, and burn your house down with your family inside.

Was this an injustice? If so, why?

Could it be perhaps...because my actions were unwarranted/too extreme given the circumstances?

In other words...unjustifed?

"Unjustified" means "unreasonable," something with no legitimate basis. Injustice is quite another matter, pertaining to unfair motivations. While an injustice may be unjustified, it is not the case that everything that is unjustified is an injustice. The two words are not coterminous. If you were unaware of this, then you're equivocating out of ignorance. If you are aware of this verity and intentionally blurring the distinctions for rhetorical purposes, then you are not merely equivocating ignorantly (which might be excusable), but doing so intentionally. If, however, you have actually bought into some sort of "-ism" which results in intransigent refusal to consider what others have to say on the matter and necessitates a Sprachspiel particular to that specific "-ism," then you're still equivocating, but doing so out of bias.

In any case, you're equivocating.

[Aurora Novus]

"Unjustified" means "unreasonable," something with no legitimate basis.

Agreed.

Injustice is quite another matter, pertaining to unfair motivations.

Also agreed.

While an injustice may be unjustified, it is not the case that everything that is unjustified is an injustice.

Here we disagree entirely. I contend that anything unfair treatment is, by virtue of being unfair, necessarily based in unjustified reasons. In others words, for treatment to be fair, it must be based upon a legitimate basis. Making all unjustified treatment an injustice.

In any case, you're equivocating.

Not at all. You don't recognize that one intrinsically requires the other. For something to be an injustice, it must necessarily be based upon a false premise, or illegitimate basis. Likewise, for someone to be treated a particular way on an illegitimate basis, is unfair, making it an injustice. It is not equivocating.

[Dusk_Kittens]

"Unjustified" means "unreasonable," something with no legitimate basis.

Agreed.

Injustice is quite another matter, pertaining to unfair motivations.

Also agreed.

While an injustice may be unjustified, it is not the case that everything that is unjustified is an injustice.

Here we disagree entirely. I contend that anything unfair treatment is, by virtue of being unfair, necessarily based in unjustified reasons. In others words, for treatment to be fair, it must be based upon a legitimate basis. Making all unjustified treatment an injustice.

In any case, you're equivocating.

Not at all. You don't recognize that one intrinsically requires the other. For something to be an injustice, it must necessarily be based upon a false premise, or illegitimate basis. Likewise, for someone to be treated a particular way on an illegitimate basis, is unfair, making it an injustice. It is not equivocating.

No. They are not coterminous. As I said, an injustice may be unjustified (perhaps I should use a stronger expression than "may be" so that my point is clear: an injustice IS unjustified), but that does not mean that the requirement goes the other way. There's plenty of x that is unjustified which has nothing to do with justice or injustice. An Unwarranted Assumption is surely "unjustified," but does not necessarily have any relation to Ethics or Politics whatsoever.

[Aurora Novus]

No. They are not coterminous. As I said, an injustice may be unjustified (perhaps I should use a stronger expression than "may be" so that my point is clear: an injustice IS unjustified), but that does not mean that the requirement goes the other way. There's plenty of x that is unjustified which has nothing to do with justice or injustice.

Simply reaffirming your position is not a counter-argument; it is merely sticking with a debunked position.

As I explained previously, to be treated a particular way on the basis of a false premis, is unfair treatment, making it unjustifed, and therefore, an injustice.

An Unwarranted Assumption is surely "unjustified," but does not necessarily have any relation to Ethics or Politics whatsoever.

Yes, it does, as to purport any unwarranted assumption as true, and further more, to force a population to abide by this false premise, is immoral, due to it's unfair nature. An act or claim which is unjustified is unfair, making it an injustice to be subjected to it, and thus, immoral.

Once again, you are wrong. Feel free to try again.

[Aurora Novus]

Just to further rub it in your face.

Unjust: not just; lacking in justice or fairness.

Injustice: an unjust or unfair act; wrong.

Literally every definition of the word 'injustice' on that page uses 'unjust' as a defnind word. And in fact, 'unjustness' is given as a synonym for 'injustice'. And both utilize lacking in 'fairness' as part of their definitions and synonyms.

You are wrong.

[Dusk_Kittens]

No. They are not coterminous. As I said, an injustice may be unjustified (perhaps I should use a stronger expression than "may be" so that my point is clear: an injustice IS unjustified), but that does not mean that the requirement goes the other way. There's plenty of x that is unjustified which has nothing to do with justice or injustice.

Simply reaffirming your position is not a counter-argument; it is merely sticking with a debunked position.

You haven't debunked it. You merely asserted something that is false and without providing any argument in support of the false claim.

As I explained previously, to be treated a particular way on the basis of a false premis, is unfair treatment, making it unjustifed, and therefore, an injustice.

Quite correct, and what I said.

An Unwarranted Assumption is surely "unjustified," but does not necessarily have any relation to Ethics or Politics whatsoever.

Yes, it does, as to purport any unwarranted assumption as true, and further more, to force a population to abide by this false premise, is immoral, due to it's unfair nature. An act or claim which is unjustified is unfair, making it an injustice to be subjected to it, and thus, immoral.

Once again, you are wrong. Feel free to try again.

I'm going to make an inquiry, purely for purposes of my own understanding of where you're coming from:

Is the ethicality of any given x to be sought in (a) the act, (b) the consequences, or (c) the intention/attitude?
You may select one and only one (regardless of the possibility that some combination of the three is a possible consideration, which one do you feel is most relevant?).

[Dusk_Kittens]

Just to further rub it in your face.

Unjust: not just; lacking in justice or fairness.

Injustice: an unjust or unfair act; wrong.

Literally every definition of the word 'injustice' on that page uses 'unjust' as a defnind word. And in fact, 'unjustness' is given as a synonym for 'injustice'. And both utilize lacking in 'fairness' as part of their definitions and synonyms.

You are wrong.

There's still a bit of unflagellated straw poking out of your rhetorical effigy over here.

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