Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Aurora Novus]

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

Uhuh. Except for, you know, my explanation on how all hat is unjust is unfair, and therefore, an injustice, right?

By the way:

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.

You lose.

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?).

I will not answer, because your question is rigged and inaccurate; it must be sought in all of them. Which one is "most important" varies from situation to situation. For instance, raping and murdering you is obviously most wrong because of the act, while bullying someone is most wrong because of the intent.

In any case, you're been proven wrong, now by several dictionary definitions, and a thesaurus.

[Arcturus Novus]

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

It isn't a racial issue anymore. It's about "oh God, I have to perform bodily functions near someone of the opposite gender "
The majority of people aren't comfortable with the idea of gender neutrality in general, let alone in somewhere like a restroom.

[Dusk_Kittens]

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

Uhuh. Except for, you know, my explanation on how all hat is unjust is unfair, and therefore, an injustice, right?

By the way:

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.

You lose.

Except for, you know, the fact that your "explanation" is merely an assertion without any basis, and therefore, (ahem) unjustified.

As for your quote of yourself in an effort to "prove" something nobody had said previously, I've already responded to that:

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.

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?).

I will not answer, because your question is rigged and inaccurate; it must be sought in all of them. Which one is "most important" varies from situation to situation. For instance, raping and murdering you is obviously most wrong because of the act, while bullying someone is most wrong because of the intent.

In any case, you're been proven wrong, now by several dictionary definitions, and a thesaurus.

Wait, so "murder" is an act itself? I was under the impression that the "act" in question was "killing," and that "murder" was a specific type of "killing," determined to be "murder" by virtue of the intention/motivation, rather than the mere act of taking life. I mean, "killing in self defense" is not "murder," right? Is "killing in time of war" the same as "murder," too?

[Aurora Novus]

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

Yes it is.

Justified: to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right.

To reiterate:

Unjust: not just; lacking in justice or fairness.

Justice necessarily involves being right and just, as defined here:

Justice: the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.

Justice involves being right and just. Unjustified is the lack of being just. Unjust is the lack of justice, or in other words, being right or just.

Therefore, as all the above definitions prove, that which is unjustified is unjust.

You are attempting to play the mot ridiculous, pedantic, semantics game I have ever seen...and utterly failing at it on all fronts.

You lose again.

[Aurora Novus]

Except for, you know, the fact that your "explanation" is merely an assertion without any basis, and therefore, (ahem) unjustified.

I didn't realize dictionaries and thesauruses have become a lack of basis.

Which is more than can be said for your pathetic excuse of an argument.

In any case, you've been proven wrong on all fronts. If you want to dispute dictionary definitions, take it up with the people who write them. But as it stands, all evidence points towards your own ignorance. That which is an injustice is always unjust. That which is unjust is always an injustice.

[Arcturus Novus]

Except for, you know, the fact that your "explanation" is merely an assertion without any basis, and therefore, (ahem) unjustified.

I didn't realize dictionaries and thesauruses have become a lack of basis.

In any case, you've been proven wrong on all fronts. If you want to dispute dictionary definitions, take it up with the people who write them. But as it stands, all evidence points towards your own ignorance. That which is an injustice is always unjust. That which is unjust is always an injustice.

This is a bit of a straw man...

[Dusk_Kittens]

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

Yes it is.

Justified: to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right.

To reiterate:

Unjust: not just; lacking in justice or fairness.

Justice necessarily involves being right and just, as defined here:

Justice: the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.

Justice involves being right and just. Unjustified is the lack of being just. Unjust is the lack of justice, or in other words, being right or just.

Therefore, as all the above definitions prove, that which is unjustified is unjust.

You are attempting to play the mot ridiculous, pedantic, semantics game I have ever seen...and utterly failing at it on all fronts.

You lose again.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a competition. But if it be a competition, then you are the one who loses.

If you sincerely do not understand that I'm saying that the two words "unjust" and "unjustified" do not have the same meaning, that's one thing, and a simple misunderstanding. If, on the other hand, you are intentionally attempting to obfuscate what I'm saying by misrepresenting it, that's a Straw Man.

Either way, you're the one who has erred.

[Aurora Novus]

It isn't a racial issue anymore. It's about "oh God, I have to perform bodily functions near someone of the opposite gender "

Transpose that over to the racial issue however. That was the point I'm trying to get across.

The majority of people aren't comfortable with the idea of gender neutrality in general, let alone in somewhere like a restroom.

So what? Again, transpose the argument over to racial issue. It doesn't matter if people don't like it, especially if a majority doesn't like it. that's an ad populem argument. They'll just have to get over it. And they will, once we expose them to that environment. IT may be awkward at first, but they'll adjust.

[The New One]

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.

A significant amount of people do not want it. Is it really such a pressing issue that we must force it upon people?

[Aurora Novus]

This is a bit of a straw man...

No it's not.

He's claiming I have no basis for my arguments...despite my several citings of dictionary definitions and thesauruses. He's either horrendously mistaken and blind, or he doesn't consider those things to be a valid basis.

[Aurora Novus]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a competition. But if it be a competition, then you are the one who loses.

If you sincerely do not understand that I'm saying that the two words "unjust" and "unjustified" do not have the same meaning, that's one thing, and a simple misunderstanding. If, on the other hand, you are intentionally attempting to obfuscate what I'm saying by misrepresenting it, that's a Straw Man.

Either way, you're the one who has erred.

Despite the fact that the definitions posted prove you wrong, amirite?

[Meryuma]

This is off topic, but my daughter in the RP forums is named Aurora. That's freaky.

Looks like your daughter is a dirty commie. Watch out.

Na, I originally just wanted to use the name "Aurora", as it is the name of a nation central to a story I'm writing, but the name was already taken. So I just added Novus on, as it gets across the same basic message. New dawn.

Speaking of gender, it should be Aurora Nova, but whatever.

I find the argument that coed bathrooms would assist transgender flawed. Bigots do not bash because someone violated a sign they bash because they are bigots.

I know at least one transgender person who has felt uncomfortable when it comes to public bathrooms.

[Arcturus Novus]

This is a bit of a straw man...

No it's not.

He's claiming I have no basis for my arguments...despite my several citings of dictionary definitions and thesauruses. He's either horrendously mistaken and blind, or he doesn't consider those things to be a valid basis.

Then if he refuses to accept your argument, modify it. Use new sources.

[Aurora Novus]

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.

A significant amount of people do not want it. Is it really such a pressing issue that we must force it upon people?

Yes, it is. Just because most people want it, doesn't mean they should get it. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

The fact is, if there is no sound basis for the segregation, and someone does not wish to be subject to it, it is an injustice, and therefore, immoral, to subject them to it.

So yeah, it's an important. The most pressing issue of our time? No. But important none the less. Any evil, no matter how small, is still an evil, and must be done away with.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Really race and gender are fundamentally incomparable.

I have a question, do you think that race doesn't exist either? Because it is just as much a social construct as gender?

Fundamentally different in every way, but it's still a social construct and hey social constructs don't exist and gender's somehow the same as race!

What the fuck do I know.

[Aurora Novus]

No it's not.

He's claiming I have no basis for my arguments...despite my several citings of dictionary definitions and thesauruses. He's either horrendously mistaken and blind, or he doesn't consider those things to be a valid basis.

Then if he refuses to accept your argument, modify it. Use new sources.

Why should I?

The evidence is there. It's his problem if he doesn't accept it. I've fulfilled my burden of proof.

The fact is, he's made unbacked assertions, whereas everything I've claimed is backed by dictionaries and thesauruses. He's been disproven, and his claim debunked, whether he chooses to recognize this or not. Again, the evidence is there, for anyone to read.

I cannot teach those that do not wish to learn. Willful ignorance is his problem, not mine.

[Dusk_Kittens]

This is a bit of a straw man...

No it's not.

He's claiming I have no basis for my arguments...despite my several citings of dictionary definitions and thesauruses. He's either horrendously mistaken and blind, or he doesn't consider those things to be a valid basis.

"He" is actually a "she," and I'm saying that you're confusing (intentionally or otherwise) my actual effort to point out that you're equivocating with your imagined or pretended assumption that I'm saying that things which are unjust are not unjustified. In point of fact, "injustice" necessitates "the quality of being unjust," but that's simply a tautology, and not a proper definition. Also in point of fact, what is "unjust" is necessarily "unjustifiable," but again, this is merely trivial truth, and does not address my contention in the least. My contention is twofold: (1) that the two words "unjust" and "unjustified" do not have identical meaning (and that "unjustified" is not the same thing as "injustice"), and that, (2)while injustice is always unjustified, not everything which is unjustified is an injustice.

By ignoring this, you err. By asserting that the second clause in the second part of my contention is false without any attempt to provide any argument to support that assertion, you are guilty of Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning, Unwarranted Assumption, and Tu Quoque (or Projection, or both).

[Lord Kandar]

"Gender neutral" public toilets to be built in UK

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/odd/2013-02/18/c_132175543.htm

BEIJING, Feb. 18 (Xinhuanet) -- The Brighton and Hove City Council, England, has scrapped male and female public toilets in favor of "gender neutral" facilities.

Facilities to be built are designed to be shared by adults and children and do not feature the words "Men" or "Ladies" but instead will show symbols indicating they can be used by people of any sex or age.

The move was described as "political correctness gone barmy" by opponents, who warned that the vast majority of residents would prefer to use single-sex lavatories.

The Brighton and Hove City Council disclosed in emails that it wished to promote the term “gender neutral” and build facilities which are open to all, regardless of sex.

It believed such facilities will be more accessible for those who do not identify with the male-female binary.

The block will include four new lavatories and a café. Images depicting a man, a woman and a child will be fitted to the doors.

Lynda Hyde, a Tory councilor in the Rottingdean ward, in which a new facility is being built, said: "This does seem to be a case of unnecessary bureaucracy and political correctness."

I mean it's awkward enough going to the restroom with a bunch of strange dudes you don't even know. But now it would be both? Interesting.
There of course would be concerns about harassment, and men with ego problems who probably don't want to know that women are in the room while he uses the facilities.

But then every man in his right mind would let the lady go first, thus the gender neutral bathrooms just become women's restrooms that men are allowed to go in.


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?

A kid could walk in on sexual activity, my response is no.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Oh, and also, since it was you who introduced the moral bit to the discussion, my inquiry about your ethical perspective is wholly warranted, and demands a response. If you wish to dabble in Ethics, then you are obligated to explain the basis of your ethical views.

[Aurora Novus]

My contention is twofold: (1) that the two words "unjust" and "unjustified" do not have identical meaning (and that "unjustified" is not the same thing as "injustice"), and that,

False, as proven by the definitions provided.

(2)while injustice is always unjustified, not everything which is unjustified is an injustice.

False, again, by the definitions provided.

You're literally a student in class claiming "the earth isn't round!", despite the NASA images right in front of you on the board.

By ignoring this

Oh the irony.

By asserting that the second clause in the second part of my contention is false without any attempt to provide any argument to support that assertion

Aside from, again, the definitions from dictionaries I cited. Not at all an argument, amirie?

Honestly, are you blind? did you miss several posts of mine? Or are you purposefully attempting to misrepresent me, by ignoring the ever surmounting pile of evidence against you that I posted?

Tell you what. You think you're so right prove it. Go on, provide some evidence. Because as it stands, your entire argument hinges upon the backing of "It's this way because I said so", whereas mine is hinged upon "It's this way because dictionaries define it as such."

Who's do you honestly think holds more water here mate?

[Aurora Novus]

A kid could walk in on sexual activity, my response is no.

And they couldn't now?

Plus, why is that even a problem? What, their brain is going to give out on them because them see two people rubbing up against one another for a second or two? Come on, get real.

[Monlyth]

I support Gender neutral restrooms. It's amazing to me that anyone has a problem with this.

In your house do you have gender segregated restrooms? I've never met anyone who does. I don't understand why they decided to segregate "public restrooms" when no one expects that for restrooms in their own homes.

To be fair though, most public restrooms have multiple people using stalls at the same time, in the same room, whereas bathrooms in our own homes normally just hold a single toilet, hence only allowing one person to use that bathroom at a time. The scenarios are somewhat different.

[Dusk_Kittens]

My contention is twofold: (1) that the two words "unjust" and "unjustified" do not have identical meaning (and that "unjustified" is not the same thing as "injustice"), and that,

False, as proven by the definitions provided.

(2)while injustice is always unjustified, not everything which is unjustified is an injustice.

False, again, by the definitions provided.

You're literally a student in class claiming "the earth isn't round!", despite the NASA images right in front of you on the board.

By ignoring this

Oh the irony.

By asserting that the second clause in the second part of my contention is false without any attempt to provide any argument to support that assertion

Aside from, again, the definitions from dictionaries I cited. Not at all an argument, amirie?

Honestly, are you blind? did you miss several posts of mine? Or are you purposefully attempting to misrepresent me, by ignoring the ever surmounting pile of evidence against you that I posted?

Tell you what. You think you're so right prove it. Go on, provide some evidence. Because as it stands, your entire argument hinges upon the backing of "It's this way because I said so", whereas mine is hinged upon "It's this way because dictionaries define it as such."

Who's do you honestly think holds more water here mate?

Your definitions do not disprove what I have stated. The fact that you cannot (or will not) see this and admit it speaks volumes.

I have stated "there is some x such that x is y and x is not z." You chose to dispute that without any evidence or argument, but a simple denial. That's not a logical argument. It's a fallacy. Quoting dictionary definitions at me which do not at all address what I have stated proves nothing, gives evidence of nothing, and amounts to nothing.

[Aurora Novus]

Oh, and also, since it was you who introduced the moral bit to the discussion, my inquiry about your ethical perspective is wholly warranted, and demands a response. If you wish to dabble in Ethics, then you are obligated to explain the basis of your ethical views.

I owe you nothing. I've already proven my case with objective facts; your unwillingness to accept the definitions provided is your problem, not mine. But you stance has been debunked. The dictionary says your wrong.

Until you actually pay attention to the evidence provided, and start to provided evidence of your own, you're done kid. Vamoose.

[Aurora Novus]

Your definitions do not disprove what I have stated. The fact that you cannot (or will not) see this and admit it speaks volumes.

Uhuh. Suuuuure.

Except, you know, that part where I showed that unjustified and unjust are the same thing, right? Or did you forget about it. Let's repost it for you.

Justified: to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right.

To reiterate:

Unjust: not just; lacking in justice or fairness.

Justice necessarily involves being right and just, as defined here:

Justice: the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.

Justice involves being right and just. Unjustified is the lack of being just. Unjust is the lack of justice, or in other words, being right or just.

Be a dear and explain how that does not disprove your claim, despite proving the exact opposite of what you claimed?

Quoting dictionary definitions at me which do not at all address what I have stated proves nothing, gives evidence of nothing, and amounts to nothing.

So when you claim:

"Unjust" is NOT "unjustified."

And I respond with the above definitions, that's not addressing your case?

Do you even have the most basic understanding of what debate is?