Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[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.

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.

Your "evidence" does not address what I have stated in the least. Instead, you chose to change the terms mid-discussion, and then defined the two terms you had begun using, rather than the two you had been using (never mind that one of those was the same as in the previous part of the discussion). FWIW, I'm in my 40s, my BA is in Philosophy (with a focus in Logic), and I have taught Logic at the university level. Now, I suggest you re-read the past couple of pages more carefully, and stop being concerned with "winning." I'm not debating with you, so "winning" is not my goal, although that seems to be your primary concern. I'm pointing out that you have used incorrect inference forms. This is not a matter of Rhetoric (debate), but of Logic (argument), and it is undeniable.

[Dusk_Kittens]

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?

You need to notice the conjunction "or" in the definition, and the ambiguity in the meaning of the term "right" (which can mean "just" OR "correct," which again, do not mean the same thing).

[Aurora Novus]

Your "evidence" does not address what I have stated in the least.

Right.

So the definitions of "unjust" and "unjustified" do not relate to your claim ""unjust" is not "unjustified"" in the least.

You heard it here first folks. Dictionary definitions of words do not relate, in any way, to a dispute about the definitions of those words.

Instead, you chose to change the terms mid-discussion, and then defined the two terms you had begun using, rather than the two you had been using (never mind that one of those was the same as in the previous part of the discussion).

I don't know what you're talking about here, but I've defined aLL the terms I've been using thus far. Unjust, unjustified, injustice, justice, they all have definitions posted, by me.

FWIW, I'm in my 40s, my BA is in Philosophy (with a focus in Logic), and I have taught Logic at the university level.

Congrats.

You must be pretty good at BS, which explains a lot about our current conversation.

Now, I suggest you re-read the past couple of pages more carefully

Likewise.

This is not a matter of Rhetoric (debate), but of Logic (argument), and it is undeniable.

The logic is that, by the definitions provided, your claims are false. By the evidence provided, "unjust" and "unjustified" are equivalent.

Are you ever going to actually provide any evidence yourself? Or are you just going to sit there and whine about how you are apparently right, and I'm supposedly wrong, despite the fact that you have no basis to make such a claim?

Vamoose.

[Aurora Novus]

You need to notice the conjunction "or" in the definition, and the ambiguity in the meaning of the term "right" (which can mean "just" OR "correct," which again, do not mean the same thing).

'Right' was obviously in that sense being used to mean "morally good". And morally rightness is also a characteristic of justice, the lack of which, as you will recall, is once again a defining characteristic of being unjust.

Showing once again the link between unjust and unjustified. That which is unjust is unjustified. That which is unjustified is unjust.

Try again.

[Greed and Death]

And, I know a good many people who feel uncomfortable in coed bathrooms.

Feeling uncomfortable is sad, but since someone is going to feel uncomfortable no matter what it is not a good argument either way. If anything those whose genders match their anatomy would gain preference because of the principle for providing the greatest good for the greatest number.

Safety is a good argument but, making bathrooms coed does not make the bathroom safe, especially those who only wish to change the signage. You see bathrooms by function are non public spaces, and it is sad fact that when removed from the public you are at greater risk of being attacked. Doubly so for transgendered due to the large number of bigots who target them for attack.

Making a bathroom coed does not remove the bigots from the bathroom, or the nonpublic nature of the facility, so no greater safety is engendered by making the facilities coed.

[Aurora Novus]

Feeling uncomfortable is sad, but since someone is going to feel uncomfortable no matter what it is not a good argument either way. If anything those whose genders match their anatomy would gain preference because of the principle for providing the greatest good for the greatest number.

Feeling uncomfortable is not, itself, a valid argument for either side.

Safety is a good argument but, making bathrooms coed does not make the bathroom safe

Increased traffic flow to one particular room = increased chance of being caught, which, in theory, = decreased willingness to attempt a crime like rape or assault, which necessarily requires either no witnesses or witnesses who do not intervene.

Making a bathroom coed does not remove the bigots from the bathroom

I don't know about others, but for me, this isn't about transgender issues. It's about the inherent injustice of forcing people to abide by segregated bathrooms.

[The Emerald Dawn]

And, I know a good many people who feel uncomfortable in coed bathrooms.

Feeling uncomfortable is sad, but since someone is going to feel uncomfortable no matter what it is not a good argument either way. If anything those whose genders match their anatomy would gain preference because of the principle for providing the greatest good for the greatest number.

Safety is a good argument but, making bathrooms coed does not make the bathroom safe, especially those who only wish to change the signage. You see bathrooms by function are non public spaces, and it is sad fact that when removed from the public you are at greater risk of being attacked. Doubly so for transgendered due to the large number of bigots who target them for attack.

Making a bathroom coed does not remove the bigots from the bathroom, or the nonpublic nature of the facility, so no greater safety is engendered by making the facilities coed.

This is why I wish we could create a space that defies physics and have an infinite number of single occupant bathrooms. Then it wouldn't matter at all.

[Dusk_Kittens]

You need to notice the conjunction "or" in the definition, and the ambiguity in the meaning of the term "right" (which can mean "just" OR "correct," which again, do not mean the same thing).

'Right' was obviously in that sense being used to mean "morally good". And morally rightness is also a characteristic of justice, the lack of which, as you will recall, is once again a defining characteristic of being unjust.

Showing once again the link between unjust and unjustified. That which is unjust is unjustified. That which is unjustified is unjust.

Try again.

Look:

That which is unjust is unjustified. Right, correct, and I have never denied that.

What I have attempted to point out is that "that which is unjustified is not necessarily unjust." In replying to this, you chose to introduce the concept of "morality." When I requested clarification of your stance, you refused to provide it.

And "right" in the definition you provided is by no means "obviously" intended to mean "morally good," else why distinguish it from "just" by use of the conjunction "or"? Surely "just" is "ethically good" seeing as how Ethics is concerned with "Internal Justice" (just as Politics is concerned with "External Justice")? What then would be the need to use both terms in the definition if they are intended synonymously? In point of fact, "justification" is often used to show something is "right" in the sense of "correct," and not simply in the sense of "ethically good." You are undoubtedly aware of this and are attempting to twist the definition in order to support your assertion, which, again, is the fallacy of Equivocation.

However, you have demonstrated clearly that you're not interested in getting at the truth, but only with "winning," and so I apologize to the creator of this thread for derailing the discussion from the topic at hand by focus on minutiae in your objections to the positions taken by others. I do think that you're taking the piss, and doing so intentionally, because surely you must realize that you're not on solid ground in these distortions of semantics.

[Aurora Novus]

'Right' was obviously in that sense being used to mean "morally good". And morally rightness is also a characteristic of justice, the lack of which, as you will recall, is once again a defining characteristic of being unjust.

Showing once again the link between unjust and unjustified. That which is unjust is unjustified. That which is unjustified is unjust.

Try again.

Look:

That which is unjust is unjustified. Right, correct, and I have never denied that.

What I have attempted to point out is that "that which is unjustified is not necessarily unjust."

By definition, yes, it is.

Case closed.

In replying to this, you chose to introduce the concept of "morality." When I requested clarification of your stance, you refused to provide it.

Because it was an irrelevant question, with a disingenuous proposition.

And "right" in the definition you provided is by no means "obviously" intended to mean "morally good," else why distinguish it from "just" by use of the conjunction "or"?

As a means to cite multiple words within a definition to lend it creditability, or simply because it's common human behavior to say things which means the same thing within the same sentence. It's called redundancy. Like saying "It was a black darkness" or "I am furiously livid" or "I live within close proximity to X".

Surely "just" is "ethically good" seeing as how Ethics is concerned with "Internal Justice" (just as Politics is concerned with "External Justice")? What then would be the need to use both terms in the definition if they are intended synonymously?

Again, redundancy. There was no "need" per say, it's just human behavior. Which is patently obvious to anyone, unless you're justa robot, devoid of the ability to understand context.

In point of fact, "justification" is often used to show something is "right" in the sense of "correct," and not simply in the sense of "ethically good."

Indeed. I've yet to dispute this. In fact, I seem to recall claiming that to espouse that which is based upon a false premise as true, is immoral. In fact I said exactly this. Trying everything together.

Honestly, please pay attention. I'm up to my wits end dealing with your inability to follow along and accept evidence as presented.

However, you have demonstrated clearly that you're not interested in getting at the truth, but only with "winning,"

So says the person who continuously posits she's the one who is right, despite providing no evidence for her case, and the existence of evidence to the contrary.

I do think that you're taking the piss, and doing so intentionally, because surely you must realize that you're not on solid ground in these distortions of semantics.

Oh the irony. Oh the hypocrisy. Oh the ignorance.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Feeling uncomfortable is sad, but since someone is going to feel uncomfortable no matter what it is not a good argument either way. If anything those whose genders match their anatomy would gain preference because of the principle for providing the greatest good for the greatest number.

Feeling uncomfortable is not, itself, a valid argument for either side.

You obviously have never worked in anything to do with pubic relations or something of the sort. The thing is, most organizations actively try to minimize people feeling uncomfortable when using their facilities so the "comfort" factor isn't just a valid argument, it's paramount.

Now I'm guessing your next line will be something like "and apartheid made people feel comfortable too!" and to that I'll say: this isn't comparable as apartheid intentionally discriminated against a group whereas separate sex bathrooms intentionally discriminate against nobody.

Safety is a good argument but, making bathrooms coed does not make the bathroom safe

Increased traffic flow to one particular room = increased chance of being caught, which, in theory, = decreased willingness to attempt a crime like rape or assault, which necessarily requires either no witnesses or witnesses who do not intervene.

Source.

Making a bathroom coed does not remove the bigots from the bathroom

I don't know about others, but for me, this isn't about transgender issues. It's about the inherent injustice of forcing people to abide by segregated bathrooms.

It's unfortunate that you find there is an inherant injustice. But the majority of the rest of the population, either sex, finds there to be no injustice I suppose we won't bother worrying about it.

[Aurora Novus]

Feeling uncomfortable is not, itself, a valid argument for either side.

You obviously have never worked in anything to do with pubic relations or something of the sort.

Actually, that's false. Beyond that though, it's irrelevant. Jus because something makes someone feel bad does not, in of itself, logically justify banning something. That's an indisputable fact.

Now I'm guessing your next line will be something like "and apartheid made people feel comfortable too!" and to that I'll say: this isn't comparable as apartheid intentionally discriminated against a group whereas separate sex bathrooms intentionally discriminate against nobody.

False. Separate sex bathrooms discriminate against men and women, by not allowing either entry into the other.

And yeah, transpose your argument over to racial issues, and it falls apart. So sorry, but just because something makes you feel uncomfortable, does not justify you getting to avoid that thing. And just because you may be in the majority, doesn't mean you get to have your way.

If you cannot provide a logically sound reason for the segregation of bathrooms, you have no case to support their existence, and consequently, enforcing others to abide by them is unjust oppression. It's immoral.

Increased traffic flow to one particular room = increased chance of being caught, which, in theory, = decreased willingness to attempt a crime like rape or assault, which necessarily requires either no witnesses or witnesses who do not intervene.

Source.

Notice the phrase "in theory" in there.

Unless you want me to source my claim about rape and assault...in which case...how? Do you want me to come over and rape/assault you?

And by the way, it's not even my job to prove anything. Your side is the one with the burden of proof. What is your evidence the segregated rooms reduce assault and rape, or that unisex rooms would increase it?

It's unfortunate that you find there is an inherant injustice. But the majority of the rest of the population, either sex, finds there to be no injustice I suppose we won't bother worrying about it.

Ad populem. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks. Only what is.

It must feel good, belonging to the privileged class.

[Vitaphone Racing]

You obviously have never worked in anything to do with pubic relations or something of the sort.

Actually, that's false. Beyond that though, it's irrelevant. Jus because something makes someone feel bad does not, in of itself, logically justify banning something. That's an indisputable fact.

No, this ^ is what's irrelevant. What is being banned exactly?

Now I'm guessing your next line will be something like "and apartheid made people feel comfortable too!" and to that I'll say: this isn't comparable as apartheid intentionally discriminated against a group whereas separate sex bathrooms intentionally discriminate against nobody.

False. Separate sex bathrooms discriminate against men and women, by not allowing either entry into the other.

Men and women are provided for equally in the restroom department. By your logic, women's and children's hospitals are also discriminatory.

And yeah, transpose your argument over to racial issues, and it falls apart. So sorry, but just because something makes you feel uncomfortable, does not justify you getting to avoid that thing. And just because you may be in the majority, doesn't mean you get to have your way.

You're right, just because something does make me feel uncomfortable doens't mean I have to get my way. And I'm saying the same thing back to you. Being in the majority doesn't mean you have to get your way either, but like I said right from the start, groups go out of their way to ensure as many people as possible feel comfortable.

If you cannot provide a logically sound reason for the segregation of bathrooms, you have no case to support their existence, and consequently, enforcing others to abide by them is unjust oppression. It's immoral.

There are many logically sound reasons to have them. You just don't view them as logically sound and this really isn't my problem.

Source.

Notice the phrase "in theory" in there.

Unless you want me to source my claim about rape and assault...in which case...how? Do you want me to come over and rape/assault you?

"I don't have a source"

And by the way, it's not even my job to prove anything. Your side is the one with the burden of proof. What is your evidence the segregated rooms reduce assault and rape, or that unisex rooms would increase it?

And am I claiming any of that? No. Now go and find me some evidence that supports your theory that you just posted and go and look up the meaning of "burden of proof" while you're at it.

It's unfortunate that you find there is an inherant injustice. But the majority of the rest of the population, either sex, finds there to be no injustice I suppose we won't bother worrying about it.

Ad populem. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks. Only what is.

But it isn't though. There is no injustice because people don't feel as if they're being mistreated. You're merely telling people that they should feel discriminated against.

It must feel good, belonging to the privileged class.

That's a cute little ad hom to round out a thoughtless post, I'll give you 7/10 for that one.

[Aurora Novus]

No, this ^ is what's irrelevant. What is being banned exactly?

Entry into certain bathrooms, on the basis of one's sex.

Men and women are provided for equally in the restroom department.

Separate but equal blah blah blah. They are still separated. And that's the problem. If the men's and women's facilities are entirely the same and equally cared for, what's the basis for banning men from one and women from the other?

By your logic, women's and children's hospitals are also discriminatory.

They are.

You're right, just because something does make me feel uncomfortable doens't mean I have to get my way. And I'm saying the same thing back to you.

That's fine, and I've already said that about myself. My argument doesn't hinge upon it just making me uncomfortable; it hinges upon the lack of reason to segregate to begin with, in conjunction with the segregation hurting me.

Being in the majority doesn't mean you have to get your way either, but like I said right from the start, groups go out of their way to ensure as many people as possible feel comfortable.

It doesn't matter that they do; that doesn't make it logically justified.

There are many logically sound reasons to have them. You just don't view them as logically sound and this really isn't my problem.

Uhuh. Sure.

Care to list any, beyond the four following ones (Personal taste, social custom, respect, efficiency), that have already been shot down in this topic repeatedly?

Or do you just like to make unfounded claims?

"I don't have a source"

Of course I don't. Again., I specifically stated "in theory".

You act like I've somehow done something or intellectually without merit.

And am I claiming any of that? No. Now go and find me some evidence that supports your theory that you just posted and go and look up the meaning of "burden of proof" while you're at it.

1) You want me to find evidence of "safety in numbers"? Especially as it applies to rape and assault? Really?`

2) the burden of proof lies with those who are making a claim. Of course I need to back up any claims I make as a general rule, but in terms of the argument, whether or not gendered bathrooms should exist, YOU have the burden, as you are proposing we segregate people.

But it isn't though. There is no injustice because people don't feel as if they're being mistreated.

1) Whether or not people feel they are being mistreated, doesn't figure into whether or not they are being mistreated.
2) I, and several others, along with countless others off this website, feel mistreated.

You're merely telling people that they should feel discriminated against.

No, I'm telling people that, whether or not they feel it, they are discriminated against, by virtue of being told "You cannot go to X room because you have Y body part". Just because some individuals may be complacent with the system, has no bearing on whether or not the system is justified.

Try again mate.

[Czechanada]

Just have robots following every citizen everywhere that will use sensors to determine whether their bladder or bowels will need to be drained via hose. Eliminate the need for bathrooms entirely.

[Ethel mermania]

And, I know a good many people who feel uncomfortable in coed bathrooms.

Feeling uncomfortable is sad, but since someone is going to feel uncomfortable no matter what it is not a good argument either way. If anything those whose genders match their anatomy would gain preference because of the principle for providing the greatest good for the greatest number.

Safety is a good argument but, making bathrooms coed does not make the bathroom safe, especially those who only wish to change the signage. You see bathrooms by function are non public spaces, and it is sad fact that when removed from the public you are at greater risk of being attacked. Doubly so for transgendered due to the large number of bigots who target them for attack.

Making a bathroom coed does not remove the bigots from the bathroom, or the nonpublic nature of the facility, so no greater safety is engendered by making the facilities coed.

This is why I wish we could create a space that defies physics and have an infinite number of single occupant bathrooms. Then it wouldn't matter at all.

Doesnt string theory say there are an infinite amounts of universe's, which should mean there are an infinite number of bathrooms? There for everyone has their place out of the sun, so to speak.

[Grenartia]

Again, does somebody not have the right to piss or shit without fear of being beaten and/or raped?

Depends. If their fear is reasonable then ofcourse. Can you demonstrate the fear is reasonable?
Otherwise i'll go back to my "Ethnic minorities cause the majority of rapes, ergo, white people must have their own bathroom." thing.
Nobody has yet demonstrated in any sense that rape is related to gender.

And AGAIN, since the fear is unreasonable and unfounded, i'll go back to my gays example.
Does somebody have the right to exclude gay people from bathrooms because of perceived and unjustifiable rape risk?
And as we previously pointed out, the fear IS unreasonable to hold. Rape would likely be HARDER in unisex bathrooms, so no, we shouldn't accomodate their delusion of risk at all.
What you all seem to be missing here is that you obviously know both of those would be bad because it's arbitrary and neither skin colour nor sexuality have any baring on rape.
But you conviniently ignore that neither does gender.
I put this down to unconscious misandry on your part. The perception that rape risk would increase is untrue (Steel magnolia even admitted this.), but what i'm ALSO getting at is that it is unfounded and based in sexism and discrimination. Neither of you have demonstrated how it is any different at all from the other examples. Explain to me how you are different from a racist or a homophobe in this respect. I'm being quite up front about this because you are both reasonable individuals, and you strike me as the sort who if it can be pointed out they have an unegalitarian view, they will change it.

Yes I can. I have already provided a source for bathroom assaults in this thread, but I will re-link it.

And, while I cannot provide a direct link to transgender bathroom rape statistics, transgender people DO have greater chances of being sexually assaulted than the general population, and as I recall, the vast majority of rapists are men. Based on these facts, it is only natural to assume that forcing an MtF woman to use the men's room increases the chances that she will get raped there.

1. As for a unisex bathroom that can fit multiple people, that's just dumb. 2. But then this is the same place that wants to ban "Mr./Ms./Miss" so as to not offend the trannies...

1. No, its not.

2. I kindly ask you not to use that word again.

How is it dumb?
EDIT:
I have a post on the previous page btw

From a practical standpoint, I'd venture to say that most women wouldn't want to share a bathroom with strange men (and given some things I read here about women's bathrooms, most men probably wouldn't want to share with women either...), so in the end pretty much nobody will end up using the unisex bathroom and will use the men's/women's rooms instead, and it will end up being an unused waste of money if they do install it.

Except for the transgender people who need gender-neutral facilities.

Fucking political correctness gone mad.

How so?

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?

Transgender safety. Well, not so much throwing everyone in one room as giving people the option.

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?

No. And its like saying "N*gg*r rights movement". Its a highly derogatory slur.

I don't know how sexual assaultists think but I suppose if I wanted to do it, I'd just wait until they left the cubicle so the lock really means nothing.

But the victim or a witness can always call the cops. There are these things called cellphones that most people have. Not to mention that somebody beating on a stall door is rather suspicious.

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...

Source?

Easy:

Have men restrooms, women restrooms, and gender neutral restrooms.

However, I am generally against this idea. If I were a woman, I wouldn't feel comfortable going to the bathroom around men. But that's just me.

Some people can't see it that clearly.

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.

So, basically, fuck people who can't piss/shit around people of other genders. I'm sorry, but that causes unnecessary negative health effects on those individuals. Yes, the problem is psychological in nature, but that does not mean its easily solved. Maybe after most people are comfortable shitting/pissing around people of other genders, we can abolish gender-segregated restrooms.

Not everybody is as socially evolved. And immediately forcing them to do so will do no good for them. I'm all for gender-neutral facilities for those who need them and those who are comfortable. But for those who aren't, to require them to use only those facilities, is oppressive.

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.

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/tlcschools.htm#_ftnref5

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.

Yes, and they could walk in on gay sex in a men's room. Your argument isn't valid.

[Desperate Measures]

Just have robots following every citizen everywhere that will use sensors to determine whether their bladder or bowels will need to be drained via hose. Eliminate the need for bathrooms entirely.

I hope to never in my life encounter a malfunctioning crapbot.

[Farnhamia]

Just have robots following every citizen everywhere that will use sensors to determine whether their bladder or bowels will need to be drained via hose. Eliminate the need for bathrooms entirely.

I hope to never in my life encounter a malfunctioning crapbot.

Wear a raincoat. And waders.

[Imsogone]

Aurora, You have so many posts that I really cannot respond to them individually, so I'd like to cover my feelings, once again, here. I'm sure you'll have a problem with my opinion, but you seem so dead set on bludgeoning everyone with your pseudo-pc sensibilities that I'm getting mildly annoyed with you for thinking that you are the only one who's right and the rest of us don't have a right to our own feelings or needs if they happen to be in conflict with yours.

I don't, and I never have said that you should not be allowed to go into the men's room or whatever if that's what you, personally, want. I take issue with you saying that in order for me to honor your rights, I must disregard mine. I don't want to go in the men's room, nor do I want men coming into the women's room. My desire for personal privacy and space is not some sick bias on my part, it's who I am. You want me to change who I am. I'm not asking you to change who you are, I'm simply asking that you respect my sensibilities, as outdated, prudish and sick as you think they may be, just as I respect yours. Go into the damned men's room, just don't force me to do it. Have a f...ng co-ed restroom, lockerroom, whatever the hell you want, just don't force it on me or anyone else who has the same needs for privacy and modesty (however false you may think it).

Do as you damn well please and let me do as I damn well please. And since I was part of the feminist movement long before you even knew what it was - you know equal pay, equal rights and opportunity, just not the same toilets - don't think to call my feminist credentials into account because I happen to think that the differences as well as the similarities between men, women, transgendered, differently gendered or nongendered should be honored and respected.

[Desperate Measures]

I hope to never in my life encounter a malfunctioning crapbot.

Wear a raincoat. And waders.

Sage advice. I already carry a trusty clothespin.

[Farnhamia]

Wear a raincoat. And waders.

Sage advice. I already carry a trusty clothespin.

Be prepared!

[Aurora Novus]

So, basically, fuck people who can't piss/shit around people of other genders.

Unless you have a sound reason for why they shouldn't have to, other than "I don't want to", yup. Tough shit. Grow up and deal with it.

I'm sorry, but that causes unnecessary negative health effects on those individuals.

I say it's entirely necessary, in the name of justice. Once again, transpose your argument to civil rights to undertand it's frailty.

"Desegregating blaks and whites causes unnecessary negative health effects on those individuals who don't want it."

Yes, the problem is psychological in nature, but that does not mean its easily solved. Maybe after most people are comfortable shitting/pissing around people of other genders, we can abolish gender-segregated restrooms.

And how do you propose we even get their, unless we begin to expose people to the other side? You're essentially telling the sick to cure themselves, before you give them a vaccine. That's insane.

Not everybody is as socially evolved. And immediately forcing them to do so will do no good for them.

Tough shit. That doesn't give them an excuse to wrongly harm others.

I'm all for gender-neutral facilities for those who need them and those who are comfortable. But for those who aren't, to require them to use only those facilities, is oppressive.

"I'm all for non-racist facilities, but for those who aren't, to require them to use only those facilities is oppressive".

In short, they shouldn't want to use different facilities in the first place. Just because they want something, doesn't mean they should get it.

[Aurora Novus]

I'm getting mildly annoyed with you for thinking that you are the only one who's right and the rest of us don't have a right to our own feelings or needs if they happen to be in conflict with yours.

Oh well?

You're basically telling me you're upset, because I think I'm right, and think you're wrong. Should I start moaning and whining the same, because you disagree with me?

I don't, and I never have said that you should not be allowed to go into the men's room or whatever if that's what you, personally, want.

I take issue with you saying that in order for me to honor your rights, I must disregard mine. I don't want to go in the men's room, nor do I want men coming into the women's room.

These two statements are incompatible. For me to be able to go into a "men's" bathroom, they must also be able to go into a "woman's" bathroom. My desires and your desires are fundamentally incompatible. So, yes, by saying "I don't want to have men in a woman's bathroom", you are saying that I should not have the right to go into a mens' bathroom.

My desire for personal privacy and space is not some sick bias on my part, it's who I am.

That's redundant. The fact that it is your bias is precisely what makes it "who you are".

Simply put, you should change who you are. Your gender-segregating mindset is horrible.

You want me to change who I am. I'm not asking you to change who you are, I'm simply asking that you respect my sensibilities, as outdated, prudish and sick as you think they may be, just as I respect yours.

Should I also respect someone if they hold racist views? Or bigoted views against the poor? hat about a Stalinist?

Just because it's "who ou are", doesn't mean I should respect it, especially if I find it to be immoral. And I find this part of you completely immoral.

Go into the damned men's room, just don't force me to do it. Have a f...ng co-ed restroom, lockerroom, whatever the hell you want, just don't force it on me or anyone else who has the same needs for privacy and modesty (however false you may think it).

Again, it doesn't work like that. It's not about having a gender-neutral room, it's about the illegitimacy of the segregated ones. you're essentially trying to tell me "Go into the men's room, but the rooms should still be segregated, and those who violate that segregation should be punished". You cannot have it both ways.

Do as you damn well please and let me do as I damn well please.

That's impossible. Our views are fundamentally incapable, like the murderer and their victim.

And since I was part of the feminist movement long before you even knew what it was - you know equal pay, equal rights and opportunity, just not the same toilets - don't think to call my feminist credentials into account because I happen to think that the differences as well as the similarities between men, women, transgendered, differently gendered or nongendered should be honored and respected.

I don't respect Feminism in the first place, and find it to be a flawed movement. So your argument from authority, in addition to being fallacious, falls on deft ears. And the differences between all of them are meaningless, and in most cases, false constructions by society. So, no, they do not deserve to be respected.

[Desperate Measures]

Sage advice. I already carry a trusty clothespin.

Be prepared!

[Vitaphone Racing]

No, this ^ is what's irrelevant. What is being banned exactly?

Entry into certain bathrooms, on the basis of one's sex.

This isn't banned.

Men and women are provided for equally in the restroom department.

Separate but equal blah blah blah. They are still separated. And that's the problem. If the men's and women's facilities are entirely the same and equally cared for, what's the basis for banning men from one and women from the other?

Uh, they aren't banned? It's real simple; one room is designed for women's sexual organs and one room is designed for men's sexual organs.

By your logic, women's and children's hospitals are also discriminatory.

They are.

Jesus....

You're right, just because something does make me feel uncomfortable doens't mean I have to get my way. And I'm saying the same thing back to you.

That's fine, and I've already said that about myself. My argument doesn't hinge upon it just making me uncomfortable; it hinges upon the lack of reason to segregate to begin with, in conjunction with the segregation hurting me.

Rooms are segregated because people want a room that caters for the needs of their plumbing and they prefer to purge around their own gender; this is a reason. Personally I don't see the reason why these toilets should be outlawed in favour of unisex toilets.

Being in the majority doesn't mean you have to get your way either, but like I said right from the start, groups go out of their way to ensure as many people as possible feel comfortable.

It doesn't matter that they do; that doesn't make it logically justified.

It's not logical to try and make as many people as possible happy?

There are many logically sound reasons to have them. You just don't view them as logically sound and this really isn't my problem.

Uhuh. Sure.

Care to list any, beyond the four following ones (Personal taste, social custom, respect, efficiency), that have already been shot down in this topic repeatedly?

Or do you just like to make unfounded claims?

Because people want to use a room that's designed for their sexual organs and like to be in the privacy of their own gender. That's the reason. If you don't agree with it, I don't give a shit. But that's the reason.

"I don't have a source"

Of course I don't. Again., I specifically stated "in theory".

You act like I've somehow done something or intellectually without merit.

No I'm acting like you've got a shitty theory which you can't prove but expect everyone else to believe. It's sort of like religion.

And am I claiming any of that? No. Now go and find me some evidence that supports your theory that you just posted and go and look up the meaning of "burden of proof" while you're at it.

1) You want me to find evidence of "safety in numbers"? Especially as it applies to rape and assault? Really?`

No, I want you to show me how unisex toilets so drastically increases traffic in the bathroom that no two people are ever alone in there for more than a few seconds at a time.

2) the burden of proof lies with those who are making a claim. Of course I need to back up any claims I make as a general rule, but in terms of the argument, whether or not gendered bathrooms should exist, YOU have the burden, as you are proposing we segregate people.

I'm not proposing we segregate people at all. I'm actually rebutting your argument that we shouldn't segregate people. I haven't made a single claim about this yet.

But it isn't though. There is no injustice because people don't feel as if they're being mistreated.

1) Whether or not people feel they are being mistreated, doesn't figure into whether or not they are being mistreated.

Actually, it sort of does. Especially when people are willing participants of the very act which you consider to be discriminatory. Or are you saying people should live their lives acccording to your beliefs of right and wrong?

2) I, and several others, along with countless others off this website, feel mistreated.

That's super. You should gather signatures and lobby the government.

You're merely telling people that they should feel discriminated against.

No, I'm telling people that, whether or not they feel it, they are discriminated against, by virtue of being told "You cannot go to X room because you have Y body part". Just because some individuals may be complacent with the system, has no bearing on whether or not the system is justified.

Try again mate.

Yeah, given your opinion on women's hospitals I'm really not even going to bother addressing this. Basically the whole notion that any perceived form of discrimination should be erradicated immediately regardless of whether or not people will be worse off is ludicrous to say the least. And you had a go at me for not making logical arguments. Sheesh.