Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Grenartia]

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

1. 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.

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

3. "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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

7. 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.

1. John can't piss or shit in the company of women. He just can't relax himself enough. Should John be forced to try to shit/piss in a gender-neutral facility, around women, potentially causing him adverse health effects?

2. When does justice (if forcing somebody to use a facility they don't want to use can even be called justice) supercede somebody's health?

3. That was not my argument.

4. You seem to not be understanding me. We SHOULD be building gender-neutral facilities, but not getting rid of separate men's and women's rooms. Eventually, people, by having the freedom to choose which facilities they want to use, will become more comfortable relieving themselves around people of other genders.

5. How is it harming others for people who can't go around others of other genders to be able to choose to go in separate facilities? I mean, if I said "No gender-neutral facilities at all", I could see your point. But I didn't say that.

6. Are you having fun attacking that strawman?

7. But people do, for whatever reasons. And forcing them to use facilities they don't feel comfortable using, or cannot, for psychological reasons, cannot use, can and will cause adverse health effects (or at the very least, soiled clothing).

[Aurora Novus]

This isn't banned.

Yes, it is. If I, as a woman, enter a man's restroom, I am subject to legal and social repercussions. And vice versa.

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.

1) the only "design" you speak of would be urinals in the men's restrooms. Toilets are toilets, and made exactly the same.
2) Yes, they are. Why do you think this topic exists? There are legal and social repercussions for a man entering a "woman's" restroom, and vice versa.

Jesus....

What? You provided a faulty example. Anything which bars a group of people is segregating. there may be certain times where segregation is justified, but that doesn't change that it's segregation.

Rooms are segregated because people want a room that caters for the needs of their plumbing

Again, the only thing you could possibly be talking about are urinals. And no one is talking about getting rid of those.

and they prefer to purge around their own gender; this is a reason.

It is a reason, yes. I have not disputed it.

It is not a valid reason however. Again, personal taste is not a logically valid reason to segregate people. It's not a valid reason to legislate anything. I can simply sit there and say "Well, I want unisex rooms". How do we determine who's view we go with? No matter what, someone isn't going to get what they want. So stop pretending that "I want it" is a valid argument. It's not, and it's childish.

Personally I don't see the reason why these toilets should be outlawed in favour of unisex toilets.

No one is talking about outlawing urinals. We're talking about not excluding people from a bathroom, because of their bodily sex.

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

Not necessarily, no.

Again, tyranny of the majority, minority rights, and all that jazz. Just because the majority wills it, doesn't mean it's okay to do it. Just because it would make the most people happy, doesn't make it logical, nor justifiable. This is, again, the ad populem fallacy.

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.

In other words, personal taste?

Right then. You have no valid argument, and broke the rules of the above question.

Again, personal taste is not a grounds to legislate something.

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.

A shitty theory which people have abided by for hundreds of years (see, safety in numbers).

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.

1) I never made such a claim. Fallacy.
2) It's simply a matter of logic. If you reduce the number of rooms people go to, by combining then, you increase the number of people that will go to any one given room. If you stop diverting 50% of the population into a separate room, and instead, take the two halves, and send them into one room, you increase the number of potential people in that room at any given time.

That wasn't the part I was calling a theory. That's simply a matter of facts. What I was calling a theory was that, if there are an increased number of potential people in a given spot, that would theoretically deter people who wish to commit crimes like rape or assault. Because it increases the chance of them being discovered.

I'm not proposing we segregate people at all. I'm actually rebutting your argument that we shouldn't segregate people.

If you don't support the non-segregation of people, you support the segregation of people. the two stances are incompatible.

And you've made it evidently clear by your posts that you suppor the segregation of people, based on your wording.

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.

No, it doesn't. there have been several cases throughout history where a group of people agreed to their mistreatment, and even believed in it, at least for a time. To an extent that still occurs, specifically dealing with gender roles, especially in lesser developed nations.

Just because someone is complacent with a system, doesn't make the system justifiable, and it doesn't make them any less oppressed or mistreated.

Or are you saying people should live their lives acccording to your beliefs of right and wrong?

I'm saying people should live their lives according to Logic.

If there is no logically sound justification for the segregation of bathrooms (and for the final time, no, "I want it that way" is not a logically valid justification), then it is unnecessary and unwarranted restriction. To then enforce that restriction upon those who do not wish to conform to it, when there is no sound justification for it to begin with, is an injustice, and immoral.

So you have a choice. Either:

1) Show how segregated rooms are logically sound.
2) Support the abolishment of sex-segregated rooms.
3) Advocate against any legal or social repercussions for not following the door signs (but at this point, they become meaningless, so you might as well argue in favor of the 2nd option).

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

Why are you trying to stop us from discussing it in this topic? If you have a problem with us complaining about it, after you just made the ridiculous claim that no one was hurt by it, leave the topic it that relates to it.

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.

That's not what I'm saying. Don't mischaracterize my argument.

I'm saying, any form of discrimination which has no logically sound basis should be abolished immediately.

And you had a go at me for not making logical arguments. Sheesh.

Yeah. Because "I don't like it that way" is not a logically valid argument. Even if it's true, it doesn't justify the discrimination. There are lots of things people want. Murderers want to murder, rapists want to rape. Simply wanting something doesn't justify you getting it. It's a logically invalid argument.

[Aurora Novus]

1. John can't piss or shit in the company of women. He just can't relax himself enough. Should John be forced to try to shit/piss in a gender-neutral facility, around women, potentially causing him adverse health effects?

Yes. that's his problem, and the rest of socoiety should not suffer, simply because he personal issues with someone's physical appearance. Again, you could replace anything with "woman", and understand why this is a laughable proposition. "John can't piss or shit in the company of anyone with red hair." "John can't piss or shit in the company of overweight people." It's just nonsense.

He has problems. He needs to deal with them, and be provided with the help he needs to get over them. Not expect society to cater to and feed them.

2. When does justice (if forcing somebody to use a facility they don't want to use can even be called justice) supercede somebody's health?

Always. The very nature of justice is "moral goodness". If for some reason someone's health would infringe upon justice, then sucks for them.

3. That was not my argument.

Yes, it is, just replacing particular sexes with races.

4. You seem to not be understanding me. We SHOULD be building gender-neutral facilities, but not getting rid of separate men's and women's rooms.

You don't seem to be understanding me.

My problem isn't just the lack of gender-neutral rooms; it's the inherent injustice of the segregated rooms. I'm arguing they should be done away with.

Eventually, people, by having the freedom to choose which facilities they want to use, will become more comfortable relieving themselves around people of other genders.

1) How can you assume that, if people are not going to be forced to co-exist? Logically, if they aren't being pushed out of their comfort zones, they'll stay in them.
2) The still does not justify the existence of gender-segregated rooms. You keep attacking having neutral-only rooms, on no basis other than "I don't like it".

That's illogical.

5. How is it harming others for people who can't go around others of other genders to be able to choose to go in separate facilities?

Because the existence of those facilities prevents certain people from entering them, which is a harm. Again, it's not about having gender-neutral rooms; it's about not having segregated rooms.

6. Are you having fun attacking that strawman?

Not a straw-man; it's transposing your argument into another situation, to expose the flaws of it's fundamental premise. Segregation on the absis of personal taste is wrong and invalid. Sex and race are no different in this regard.

7. But people do, for whatever reasons.

It doesn't matter. Just because they do, doesn't mean they should get what they want. Again, just transpose your arguments over to civil rights issues to understand why.

And forcing them to use facilities they don't feel comfortable using, or cannot, for psychological reasons, cannot use, can and will cause adverse health effects (or at the very least, soiled clothing).

Again, that's their problem. They shouldn't have those views or phobias in the first place, and we shouldn't be supportive of them;l we should be helping them eradicate them. Keeping sex-segregated rooms, in addition to perpetuating an injustice, doesn't do this. It feeds that bad habits, negative views, and phobias.

[Sovereign Rise]

Easy:

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

As I've stated previously, this does not actually solve the problem at hand, as it does not justify the existence of segregated washrooms. It does not solve the fundamental injustice of the restriction.

what justification is there for the existence of separated washrooms? you may feel uncomfortable, but, well, tough.You shouldn't feel uncomfortable. you have no valid reason to feel uncomfortable around one person, simply because they have a different physical appearance than you. So society should not be expected to cater to your personal desire.

The problem isn't the lack of unisex washrooms, it's the existence of segregated washrooms to begin with.

Because women might get raped, perhaps? Seems pretty simple if you ask me.

Also, people have a right to go to the bathroom with the same gender. I don't care if you think it's "tough" if people feel uncomfortable, but I do.

[Imsogone]

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.

I fail to see how having a facility made available for those of us who don't care to be like you interferes with your right to use whatever facility you want to use.

But, it is good to know that you would feel no compunction about dragging me kicking and screaming, by the hair and at the point of a gun into a place I don't want to be in order to support your right to go into that same place.

[Rodainia]

I hate public restrooms because they're frequented by so many people. The last thing I want to do is have more people going to an even smaller space.

[Aurora Novus]

Because women might get raped, perhaps? Seems pretty simple if you ask me.

1) How does the current setup prevent this?
2) How would, with increased traffic flow, and therefore, increased chance of being discovered, unisex rooms encourage rape?
3) Rapists are not just men.

Also, people have a right to go to the bathroom with the same gender. I don't care if you think it's "tough" if people feel uncomfortable, but I do.

1) Sorry, personal feelings are simply not a logical basis.
2) People have no right to go to the bathroom with someone of their sex, no more than they have a right to go to the bathroom with someone who shares the same ski or hair colour. Segregation must have a logically justifiable basis. You do not have a right to segregate.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This isn't banned.

Yes, it is. If I, as a woman, enter a man's restroom, I am subject to legal and social repercussions. And vice versa.

There is no such law. Social repercussions don't qualify as banning sorry.

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.

1) the only "design" you speak of would be urinals in the men's restrooms. Toilets are toilets, and made exactly the same.

Don't forget tampon disposal. Men don't need tampon bins, women don't like urinals, so a room for each makes perfect sense.

2) Yes, they are. Why do you think this topic exists? There are legal and social repercussions for a man entering a "woman's" restroom, and vice versa.

No, they aren't. Refer to my first sentence.

Jesus....

What? You provided a faulty example. Anything which bars a group of people is segregating. there may be certain times where segregation is justified, but that doesn't change that it's segregation.

And lots of us feel that that segregating the toilets are justified because we can accomodate people's tastes and needs far better this way. I'm glad you agree that segregation can be justified.

Rooms are segregated because people want a room that caters for the needs of their plumbing

Again, the only thing you could possibly be talking about are urinals. And no one is talking about getting rid of those.

Many women hate urinals, it's one reason why they aren't installed in homes. In all the unisex toilets I've been in, not one has had a urinal installed.

and they prefer to purge around their own gender; this is a reason.

It is a reason, yes. I have not disputed it.

It is not a valid reason however. Again, personal taste is not a logically valid reason to segregate people. It's not a valid reason to legislate anything. I can simply sit there and say "Well, I want unisex rooms". How do we determine who's view we go with? No matter what, someone isn't going to get what they want. So stop pretending that "I want it" is a valid argument. It's not, and it's childish.

How do we determine who's view we go with? By taking the view which will make as many people as happy as possible without unfair treatment of others. Stop pretending that this reasoning is "I want it" because that's really far from what I'm saying.

Personally I don't see the reason why these toilets should be outlawed in favour of unisex toilets.

No one is talking about outlawing urinals. We're talking about not excluding people from a bathroom, because of their bodily sex.

Where the fuck did I say urinals in the above post?

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

Not necessarily, no.

Again, tyranny of the majority, minority rights, and all that jazz. Just because the majority wills it, doesn't mean it's okay to do it. Just because it would make the most people happy, doesn't make it logical, nor justifiable. This is, again, the ad populem fallacy.

Calling it a fallacy only works if the majority is pissing on the minority but that isn't what's happening here. Nobody is being unfairly treated under the current system, nobody will be unfairly treated under the alternative system. Except the majority of the people see no problem with the current system and don't like the alternative system therefore there really is no reason to change it.

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.

In other words, personal taste?

Right then. You have no valid argument, and broke the rules of the above question.

You don't get to decide if arguments are valid or not. If you disagree with something, cool. Say that and move on.

Again, personal taste is not a grounds to legislate something.

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.

A shitty theory which people have abided by for hundreds of years (see, safety in numbers).

If you read more closely, you'll see I'm not asking for a source that proves the safety in numbers theory.

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.

1) I never made such a claim. Fallacy.

Fuck me...

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.

You said this. Now prove that increased traffic flow increases the chance of being caught so much that there will be a profound decrease in willingness to attempt a crime within would be rapists that's enough to justify unisex toilets.

Furthermore, if you were even right in saying you never made such a claim, that would be called a strawman and not a fallacy.

2) It's simply a matter of logic. If you reduce the number of rooms people go to, by combining then, you increase the number of people that will go to any one given room. If you stop diverting 50% of the population into a separate room, and instead, take the two halves, and send them into one room, you increase the number of potential people in that room at any given time.

That wasn't the part I was calling a theory. That's simply a matter of facts. What I was calling a theory was that, if there are an increased number of potential people in a given spot, that would theoretically deter people who wish to commit crimes like rape or assault. Because it increases the chance of them being discovered.[/quote]
Yeah, now prove your theory. This isn't hard. You either find a source you say I don't have one and we leave this argument alone. At the moment you're flogging a dead horse while insisting it can still finish the race.

I'm not proposing we segregate people at all. I'm actually rebutting your argument that we shouldn't segregate people.

If you don't support the non-segregation of people, you support the segregation of people. the two stances are incompatible.

And you've made it evidently clear by your posts that you suppor the segregation of people, based on your wording.

It's funny how you make this out to be a black and white issue when at the start you have said:

there may be certain times where segregation is justified,

Anyway, I'll no longer respond to anymore of your pathetic assumptions of character. If you think this is the right way to argue a point then you're really shit at debating.

Actually, it sort of does. Especially when people are willing participants of the very act which you consider to be discriminatory.

No, it doesn't. there have been several cases throughout history where a group of people agreed to their mistreatment, and even believed in it, at least for a time. To an extent that still occurs, specifically dealing with gender roles, especially in lesser developed nations.

Just because someone is complacent with a system, doesn't make the system justifiable, and it doesn't make them any less oppressed or mistreated.

Look at the definition of mistreatment and then you'll find that what you said is oxymoronic. A western woman who chooses to be a stay at home mother is not being mistreated. Another woman who is forced to stay at home is.

Or are you saying people should live their lives acccording to your beliefs of right and wrong?

I'm saying people should live their lives according to Logic.

If there is no logically sound justification for the segregation of bathrooms (and for the final time, no, "I want it that way" is not a logically valid justification), then it is unnecessary and unwarranted restriction. To then enforce that restriction upon those who do not wish to conform to it, when there is no sound justification for it to begin with, is an injustice, and immoral.

The problem is that you have no respect for other people and don't bother to listen to their arguments because you already think you're right.

I do not give a fuck what you think is logical. Really, I don't.

So you have a choice. Either:

1) Show how segregated rooms are logically sound.

There's a strong demand for them and organizations are catering to this demand.

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

Why are you trying to stop us from discussing it in this topic? If you have a problem with us complaining about it, after you just made the ridiculous claim that no one was hurt by it, leave the topic it that relates to it.

You really need to learn to read more comprehensively before you shoot your mouth off. Where did I say anything about stop discussing it?

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.

That's not what I'm saying. Don't mischaracterize my argument.

I'm saying, any form of discrimination which has no logically sound basis should be abolished immediately.

Here's the thing, and I know you don't see it, but making people feel comfortable is a logical and valid argument. I don't care if you disagree, doesn't change the fact that it's still a valid point which is always taken into account when building any public amenities.

And you had a go at me for not making logical arguments. Sheesh.

Yeah. Because "I don't like it that way" is not a logically valid argument. Even if it's true, it doesn't justify the discrimination. There are lots of things people want. Murderers want to murder, rapists want to rape. Simply wanting something doesn't justify you getting it. It's a logically invalid argument.

Now this is what you call a fallacy.

[Aurora Novus]

I fail to see how having a facility made available for those of us who don't care to be like you interferes with your right to use whatever facility you want to use.

Because if you have a facility "just for men" or "just for women", I may not be able to go inside.

But, it is good to know that you would feel no compunction about dragging me kicking and screaming, by the hair and at the point of a gun into a place I don't want to be in order to support your right to go into that same place.

Don't be dramatic.

[Commune of Luna]

Maybe if the human species achieves genderless-ness...

This is a rather silly question, and seems like just another attempt to create an issue where there was none.

[Hathradic States]

Maybe if the human species achieves genderless-ness...

This is a rather silly question, and seems like just another attempt to create an issue where there was none.

Isn't that what the left normally does?

[Aurora Novus]

There is no such law.

Yes, there are, in the form of public indecency laws. In addition, some states in the US have laws which specifically state one's gender identity does not excuse them using a particular restroom, which itself, is a law against using a restroom that does not match your sex.

You are factually wrong.

Social repercussions don't qualify as banning sorry.

Yes they do. They are a forced barrier between doing something you desire. Just because social repercussions are not legal repercussions, makes them no less of an attempt at barring an individual access to something. That is a ban.

Don't forget tampon disposal. Men don't need tampon bins, women don't like urinals, so a room for each makes perfect sense.

Tampon disposal has nothing to do with the toilets themselves. And simply have tampon disposal set up like you would ina woman's restroom.

No, they aren't. Refer to my first sentence.

You mean that one that is factually and verifiably wrong? Right then. Carry on.

And lots of us feel that that segregating the toilets are justified because we can accomodate people's tastes and needs far better this way.

1) That's simply not a problem, as any creating a gender neutral room is a simple as knocking down the wall that separates male and female restrooms in some places. You can accomodate both people's needs in the same room. That's not a justification to split them up, especially if someone doesn't want to be slip up.

2) Again with the "I want to do it so I should be allowed to do it" segregation argument. How many times must I tell you this is a logically invalid argument? It doesn't matter what you feel. It's not logically valid.

Many women hate urinals

Tough shit.

, it's one reason why they aren't installed in homes. In all the unisex toilets I've been in, not one has had a urinal installed.

Personally I don't care either way, as I don't use urinals ever. But there's nothing intrinsically wrong about having them there. If your only argument against them is "I don't like seeing them", that's not a good argument. It holds no weight.

How do we determine who's view we go with? By taking the view which will make as many people as happy as possible without unfair treatment of others.

No.That's the tyranny of the majority, and a horrible way to go.

We need to determine which route is most just and logical, not which one people want the most. Minorities deserve rights, and not just the ones majorities decide to "give" to them.

Stop pretending that this reasoning is "I want it" because that's really far from what I'm saying.

No, that really is all you're saying. That's all you've been consistently saying. You want it a particular way, so you should have it a particular way. That's been your only argument.

Where the fuck did I say urinals in the above post?

Pray tell, what "non-unisex" toilets are there that populate restrooms on a regular basis, other than urinals then?

Calling it a fallacy only works if the majority is pissing on the minority but that isn't what's happening here.

So the minority of people in this topic and elsewhere in the globe, who are complaining about this, aren't real people then? Or do we just not matter to you?

Nobody is being unfairly treated under the current system

Yes, we are. If there is no sound justification for segregating rooms, which I contend there isn't, and you have yet to prove otherwise, then it is unfair to force us to abide by that segregation, be it through legal or social means.

You don't get to decide if arguments are valid or not. If you disagree with something, cool. Say that and move on.

You're right, I don't get to decode. Logic does. Good thing that's what I've been invoking this entire time, and not my subjective desires.

hence why your argument is logically invalid. Logic is not something that is subjective mate. Accept you're wrong, and create a better argument, or still your tongue.

1) I never made such a claim. Fallacy.

Fuck me...

Quote me saying "unisex rooms will make it so two people are never alone at any given time". I never said that. You're attacking a straw man.

You said this. Now prove that increased traffic flow increases the chance of being caught so much that there will be a profound decrease in willingness to attempt a crime within would be rapists that's enough to justify unisex toilets.

That's the part where I said "theoretically". I have no statistics to provide, because we don't have mandatory unisex rooms. However, we can make certain logical deductions. As rape is a crime which requires either privacy or inactive witnesses, the less chance of having this, the less willing a victimizer will choose that particular spot to victimize. Since increased traffic flow would increase the chance of someone being present or walking in on you while committing an act like rape or assault, it stands to reason that that a potential victimizer will avoid choosing certain restrooms as locations to look for victims.

Do you disagree with this logic? If so, explain why. But simply chanting "no evidence hur durr", when you yourself have no evidence to the contrary, does not negate the logical deduction.

Furthermore, if you were even right in saying you never made such a claim, that would be called a strawman and not a fallacy.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning. A straw man is a logical fallacy. It is a specific type of fallacy.

Honestly, learn about something before you decide to talk about it.

Yeah, now prove your theory.

How can I do this, unless you make all restrooms unisex?

You either find a source you say I don't have one and we leave this argument alone. At the moment you're flogging a dead horse while insisting it can still finish the race.

How about you either (1) present evidence to the contrary, or (2) argue against the logical deduction, or (3) provide me with the means to test my theory. Otherwise, you have no sound basis to object to what I've stated.

It's funny how you make this out to be a black and white issue when at the start you have said:

there may be certain times where segregation is justified,

It is a black and white issue, and that quote doesn't change that. There are certain times it is okay to segregate, and certain times when it's not. So this time is either okay, or not okay.

You can't pick a mixture of both.

Anyway, I'll no longer respond to anymore of your pathetic assumptions of character. If you think this is the right way to argue a point then you're really shit at debating.

Look at the definition of mistreatment and then you'll find that what you said is oxymoronic. A western woman who chooses to be a stay at home mother is not being mistreated. Another woman who is forced to stay at home is.

Mistreat: to treat badly or abusively.

It can be argued that chooses to stay at home is mistreated (I wouldn't say so, but it could be argued so). Just because someone chooses so subject themselves to mistreatment, doesn't make it any less mistreatment. Bad or abusive treatment is bad or abusive, regardless of whether or not you like or want it.

I do not give a fuck what you think is logical. Really, I don't.

It's not about what I think is logical, it's about what is logical.

Logic is an objective system. So either prove that I am wrong, or accept I am right. This isn't a matter of opinion.

There's a strong demand for them and organizations are catering to this demand.

A strong demand is not justification in of itself. There was also a strong demand for slavery.

You really need to learn to read more comprehensively before you shoot your mouth off. Where did I say anything about stop discussing it?

What reason would you have to belittle my words by telling us to go complain somewhere else, unless you wanted me to be silent?

Here's the thing, and I know you don't see it, but making people feel comfortable is a logical and valid argument. I don't care if you disagree, doesn't change the fact that it's still a valid point which is always taken into account when building any public amenities.

No, it's not. It may be taken into account, but I can also take into account the fact that my hair is brown when deciding whether or not I should fly on an airplane. That doesn't make it logically relevant.

Just because you want something, that does not logically justify you getting it. Not on it's own.

This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of objectivity. It is objectively false. It is a fallacious argument.

Now this is what you call a fallacy.

This is what you call "not a counter-argument".

[Hathradic States]

Hey, pro-one restroom folks. Use an argument that doesn't devolve into "Have an additional unisex bathroom is evil 'cause we still have bathrooms we can't go in", and comparing your plight to real oppression.

[Threlizdun]

Hey, pro-one restroom folks. Use an argument that doesn't devolve into "Have an additional unisex bathroom is evil 'cause we still have bathrooms we can't go in", and comparing your plight to real oppression.

Is it not simpler to simply slap on a unisex restroom symbol than construct three bathrooms? Besides, this is not just an issue of the gender-binary, but the fact that transgendered individuals are being forced to act as though they are cisgender to adhere to societal expectations. It is discriminatory, and frankly feels like shit. I don't see why the idea of unisex bathrooms is so hard to accept. It increases the confidence of transgenders and intersexed individuals, is frankly a simpler way of doing things, and could perhaps put an end to this absurd reaction we have when in a rather common scenario just because members of another sex are there.

[AiliailiA]

Hey, pro-one restroom folks. Use an argument that doesn't devolve into "Have an additional unisex bathroom is evil 'cause we still have bathrooms we can't go in", and comparing your plight to real oppression.

Hi. I'm back.

A single public restroom takes less space, since it does not need to cater for temporary rushes of one sex or the other. A small facility (6 or so latrines) can also save on sinks.
A single public restroom is safer, since on average there will be twice as many people in it at any one time.
A single public restroom is cheaper to clean, since one cleaner can work there without needing to be the "right" sex.

[YellowApple]

I couldn't care less, as long as I have a restroom.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There is no such law.

Yes, there are, in the form of public indecency laws. In addition, some states in the US have laws which specifically state one's gender identity does not excuse them using a particular restroom, which itself, is a law against using a restroom that does not match your sex.

You are factually wrong.

Social repercussions don't qualify as banning sorry.

Yes they do. They are a forced barrier between doing something you desire. Just because social repercussions are not legal repercussions, makes them no less of an attempt at barring an individual access to something. That is a ban.

Don't forget tampon disposal. Men don't need tampon bins, women don't like urinals, so a room for each makes perfect sense.

Tampon disposal has nothing to do with the toilets themselves. And simply have tampon disposal set up like you would ina woman's restroom.

No, they aren't. Refer to my first sentence.

You mean that one that is factually and verifiably wrong? Right then. Carry on.

And lots of us feel that that segregating the toilets are justified because we can accomodate people's tastes and needs far better this way.

1) That's simply not a problem, as any creating a gender neutral room is a simple as knocking down the wall that separates male and female restrooms in some places. You can accomodate both people's needs in the same room. That's not a justification to split them up, especially if someone doesn't want to be slip up.

2) Again with the "I want to do it so I should be allowed to do it" segregation argument. How many times must I tell you this is a logically invalid argument? It doesn't matter what you feel. It's not logically valid.

Many women hate urinals

Tough shit.

, it's one reason why they aren't installed in homes. In all the unisex toilets I've been in, not one has had a urinal installed.

Personally I don't care either way, as I don't use urinals ever. But there's nothing intrinsically wrong about having them there. If your only argument against them is "I don't like seeing them", that's not a good argument. It holds no weight.

How do we determine who's view we go with? By taking the view which will make as many people as happy as possible without unfair treatment of others.

No.That's the tyranny of the majority, and a horrible way to go.

We need to determine which route is most just and logical, not which one people want the most. Minorities deserve rights, and not just the ones majorities decide to "give" to them.

Stop pretending that this reasoning is "I want it" because that's really far from what I'm saying.

No, that really is all you're saying. That's all you've been consistently saying. You want it a particular way, so you should have it a particular way. That's been your only argument.

Where the fuck did I say urinals in the above post?

Pray tell, what "non-unisex" toilets are there that populate restrooms on a regular basis, other than urinals then?

Calling it a fallacy only works if the majority is pissing on the minority but that isn't what's happening here.

So the minority of people in this topic and elsewhere in the globe, who are complaining about this, aren't real people then? Or do we just not matter to you?

Nobody is being unfairly treated under the current system

Yes, we are. If there is no sound justification for segregating rooms, which I contend there isn't, and you have yet to prove otherwise, then it is unfair to force us to abide by that segregation, be it through legal or social means.

You don't get to decide if arguments are valid or not. If you disagree with something, cool. Say that and move on.

You're right, I don't get to decode. Logic does. Good thing that's what I've been invoking this entire time, and not my subjective desires.

hence why your argument is logically invalid. Logic is not something that is subjective mate. Accept you're wrong, and create a better argument, or still your tongue.

Fuck me...

Quote me saying "unisex rooms will make it so two people are never alone at any given time". I never said that. You're attacking a straw man.

You said this. Now prove that increased traffic flow increases the chance of being caught so much that there will be a profound decrease in willingness to attempt a crime within would be rapists that's enough to justify unisex toilets.

That's the part where I said "theoretically". I have no statistics to provide, because we don't have mandatory unisex rooms. However, we can make certain logical deductions. As rape is a crime which requires either privacy or inactive witnesses, the less chance of having this, the less willing a victimizer will choose that particular spot to victimize. Since increased traffic flow would increase the chance of someone being present or walking in on you while committing an act like rape or assault, it stands to reason that that a potential victimizer will avoid choosing certain restrooms as locations to look for victims.

Do you disagree with this logic? If so, explain why. But simply chanting "no evidence hur durr", when you yourself have no evidence to the contrary, does not negate the logical deduction.

Furthermore, if you were even right in saying you never made such a claim, that would be called a strawman and not a fallacy.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning. A straw man is a logical fallacy. It is a specific type of fallacy.

Honestly, learn about something before you decide to talk about it.

Yeah, now prove your theory.

How can I do this, unless you make all restrooms unisex?

You either find a source you say I don't have one and we leave this argument alone. At the moment you're flogging a dead horse while insisting it can still finish the race.

How about you either (1) present evidence to the contrary, or (2) argue against the logical deduction, or (3) provide me with the means to test my theory. Otherwise, you have no sound basis to object to what I've stated.

It's funny how you make this out to be a black and white issue when at the start you have said:

It is a black and white issue, and that quote doesn't change that. There are certain times it is okay to segregate, and certain times when it's not. So this time is either okay, or not okay.

You can't pick a mixture of both.

Anyway, I'll no longer respond to anymore of your pathetic assumptions of character. If you think this is the right way to argue a point then you're really shit at debating.

Look at the definition of mistreatment and then you'll find that what you said is oxymoronic. A western woman who chooses to be a stay at home mother is not being mistreated. Another woman who is forced to stay at home is.

Mistreat: to treat badly or abusively.

It can be argued that chooses to stay at home is mistreated (I wouldn't say so, but it could be argued so). Just because someone chooses so subject themselves to mistreatment, doesn't make it any less mistreatment. Bad or abusive treatment is bad or abusive, regardless of whether or not you like or want it.

I do not give a fuck what you think is logical. Really, I don't.

It's not about what I think is logical, it's about what is logical.

Logic is an objective system. So either prove that I am wrong, or accept I am right. This isn't a matter of opinion.

There's a strong demand for them and organizations are catering to this demand.

A strong demand is not justification in of itself. There was also a strong demand for slavery.

You really need to learn to read more comprehensively before you shoot your mouth off. Where did I say anything about stop discussing it?

What reason would you have to belittle my words by telling us to go complain somewhere else, unless you wanted me to be silent?

Here's the thing, and I know you don't see it, but making people feel comfortable is a logical and valid argument. I don't care if you disagree, doesn't change the fact that it's still a valid point which is always taken into account when building any public amenities.

No, it's not. It may be taken into account, but I can also take into account the fact that my hair is brown when deciding whether or not I should fly on an airplane. That doesn't make it logically relevant.

Just because you want something, that does not logically justify you getting it. Not on it's own.

This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of objectivity. It is objectively false. It is a fallacious argument.

Now this is what you call a fallacy.

This is what you call "not a counter-argument".

Yeah look, I don't have the time to argue the same point on five different occaisions throughout this litle shindig so allow me to say it all now in bulk.

In the world of civilian engineering and city planning, professionals go to great lengths to assess the demands of the people which they intend to cater for. It is commonplace to note societal and cultural customs, preferences and beliefs and taking these into account when going ahead with any new project including toilets. This is crucial, as it is the goal of these professionals to design a facility which will be pleasing to as many people as possible. Now from this, personal preference is an extremely valid argument when one is talking about toilet blocks because it is the one thing that's almost always taken into account. It shouldn't come as any suprise that toilets are designed to be comfortable and relaxing. As this is a valid argument, it becomes logical that toilets are designed for personal preference.

It doesn't actually matter if you disagree with this, because you have no idea what you're talking about, have never designed a toilet block, have never taken a course in city planning and your opinion is utterly and entirely irrelevant.

Trying to equate this with hair colour and aeroplanes, murderers and rapists, etc. is fallacious because these have nothing to do with the context of what we are discussing.

Furthermore, you still haven't actually said what unisex restrooms will do apart from improve safety (which you're yet to prove) and address a perceived equality problem which nobody wants fixed.

[Forsher]

Furthermore, you still haven't actually said what unisex restrooms will do apart from improve safety (which you're yet to prove) and address a perceived equality problem which nobody wants fixed.

Note, some people see a problem here. They want it fixed. They are also all, in my experience, on NSG.

A while ago I started to think in terms of "The Real World Which I Experience" and "NSG". This co-incided with my holiday on a different nation which mostly ended up posting on topics with "gender" as an intended "key" word.

[AiliailiA]

It doesn't actually matter if you disagree with this, because you have no idea what you're talking about, have never designed a toilet block, have never taken a course in city planning and your opinion is utterly and entirely irrelevant.

Are you claiming authority as a civil engineer? That is, have you yourself designed a toilet block and had it built?

[Aurora Novus]

Yeah look, I don't have the time to argue the same point on five different occaisions throughout this litle shindig so allow me to say it all now in bulk.

In the world of civilian engineering and city planning, professionals go to great lengths to assess the demands of the people which they intend to cater for. It is commonplace to note societal and cultural customs, preferences and beliefs and taking these into account when going ahead with any new project including toilets.

Commonplace =/= logically justified.

1) I don't know how many times I have to say it, but no, just because you want something, even if you are in the majority, doesn't mean you should get it. You need a logical justification for why you want it. Lots of people want things, what makes your desires more moral and have to take president over there's? Simply being in the majority doesn't suffice.
2) Cultural/social custom doesn't justify it, because it just pishes the question back. When then ask "what justified it being a cultural/social custom?"

This is crucial, as it is the goal of these professionals to design a facility which will be pleasing to as many people as possible. Now from this, personal preference is an extremely valid argument when one is talking about toilet blocks because it is the one thing that's almost always taken into account.

You can say, from the standpoint of trying to maximize pleasure for everyone (again tyranny of the majority) that it is logically justified.

But that begs the question, is attempting to please the majority always justified? No, it isn't. So again, simply saying "business want to please as many people as possible" is not a logically valid argument. Which once again, renders your personal preference argument invalid.

It shouldn't come as any suprise that toilets are designed to be comfortable and relaxing. As this is a valid argument, it becomes logical that toilets are designed for personal preference.

Toilets are designed to be comforting and relaxing for anyone, not just a special majority who want them that particular way. They are also designed the way they are for efficiency and sanitary reasons.

Your argument has no where near as much strength as one for the current structure of toilets.

It doesn't actually matter if you disagree with this, because you have no idea what you're talking about, have never designed a toilet block, have never taken a course in city planning and your opinion is utterly and entirely irrelevant.

Argument from authority? Hello logically fallacy number...at least 5 at this point.

Trying to equate this with hair colour and aeroplanes, murderers and rapists, etc. is fallacious because these have nothing to do with the context of what we are discussing.

It's not fallacious, it's simply pointing out that personal preference alone is not a valid means to legislate something. You have attempted to combine personal preference with majority will, but majority will itself is also fallacious, rendering your argument doubly invalid.

Furthermore, you still haven't actually said what unisex restrooms will do apart from improve safety (which you're yet to prove) and address a perceived equality problem which nobody wants fixed.

It's not my job to prove they will improve safety. It's my job to show they would be the same or better. It's your job to show your set up is better for safety. you have no given any reason why a unisex room would be less safe then a segregated room. Then you also have to justify why this safety is more just han desegregating the rooms for those who do not wish to be subject to such discrimination.

You have all your work ahead of you mate.

[Grenartia]

1. John can't piss or shit in the company of women. He just can't relax himself enough. Should John be forced to try to shit/piss in a gender-neutral facility, around women, potentially causing him adverse health effects?

Yes. that's his problem, 1. and the rest of socoiety should not suffer, simply because he personal issues with someone's physical appearance. Again, you could replace anything with "woman", and understand why this is a laughable proposition. "John can't piss or shit in the company of anyone with red hair." "John can't piss or shit in the company of overweight people." It's just nonsense.

He has problems. He needs to deal with them, and be provided with the help he needs to get over them. Not expect society to cater to and feed them.

2. When does justice (if forcing somebody to use a facility they don't want to use can even be called justice) supercede somebody's health?

2. Always. The very nature of justice is "moral goodness". If for some reason someone's health would infringe upon justice, then sucks for them.

3. That was not my argument.

Yes, it is, just replacing particular sexes with races.

4. You seem to not be understanding me. We SHOULD be building gender-neutral facilities, but not getting rid of separate men's and women's rooms.

4. You don't seem to be understanding me.

My problem isn't just the lack of gender-neutral rooms; it's the inherent injustice of the segregated rooms. I'm arguing they should be done away with.

Eventually, people, by having the freedom to choose which facilities they want to use, will become more comfortable relieving themselves around people of other genders.

5A) How can you assume that, if people are not going to be forced to co-exist? Logically, if they aren't being pushed out of their comfort zones, they'll stay in them.
5B) The still does not justify the existence of gender-segregated rooms. You keep attacking having neutral-only rooms, on no basis other than "I don't like it".

That's illogical.

5. How is it harming others for people who can't go around others of other genders to be able to choose to go in separate facilities?

6. Because the existence of those facilities prevents certain people from entering them, which is a harm. Again, it's not about having gender-neutral rooms; it's about not having segregated rooms.

6. Are you having fun attacking that strawman?

7. Not a straw-man; it's transposing your argument into another situation, to expose the flaws of it's fundamental premise. Segregation on the absis of personal taste is wrong and invalid. Sex and race are no different in this regard.

7. But people do, for whatever reasons.

8A. It doesn't matter. Just because they do, doesn't mean they should get what they want. Again, just transpose your arguments over to civil rights issues to understand why.

And forcing them to use facilities they don't feel comfortable using, or cannot, for psychological reasons, cannot use, can and will cause adverse health effects (or at the very least, soiled clothing).

8B. Again, that's their problem. They shouldn't have those views or phobias in the first place, and we shouldn't be supportive of them;l we should be helping them eradicate them. Keeping sex-segregated rooms, in addition to perpetuating an injustice, doesn't do this. It feeds that bad habits, negative views, and phobias.

1. I'm sorry, but how exactly is society suffering when people have the freedom to choose to which restrooms they use?

2. So causing somebody's health to suffer (which most reasonable people wouldn't call moral goodness) is moral goodness? Injustice is now justice?

3. Granted.

4. I fail to see how separate restrooms are inherently a bad thing. Seriously. If they're so bad, then once a viable alternative (gender-neutral facilities) is put out for people to use, shouldn't people be flocking to them, instead of the separate restrooms?

5A. It doesn't necessarily follow. I fail to see why poeple should be forced to use something if its so superior to its predecessor.

5B. You're misrepresenting my stance. And you know it.

6. If you have a gender-neutral alternative that anybodywho wants to use can use, then what's the harm?

7. Again, if gender-neutral alternatives are avaliable, and, as you seem to be insisting, superior, then there's no NEED to FORCE people to use them. They will see the advantages on their own and FREELY CHOOSE to use those facilities.

8A. The crucial difference is that in the race example, the people with objections have objections to black people. In the gender example, the people with objections have objections to using the restroom with peopel of other genders, not to the other genders themselves.

8B. Why should people's health have to suffer needlessly? The fact of the matter is, a lot of people have trouble using the restroom even with people of the SAME gender. I believe the term is social anxiety. It has nothing to do with being bigoted on the basis of gender or race.

[Forsher]

It doesn't actually matter if you disagree with this, because you have no idea what you're talking about, have never designed a toilet block, have never taken a course in city planning and your opinion is utterly and entirely irrelevant.

Are you claiming authority as a civil engineer? That is, have you yourself designed a toilet block and had it built?

Snippets of that post and the posts it quoted reminded me of an assessment we did way back when (2011) for economics.

How do we determine who's view we go with? By taking the view which will make as many people as happy as possible without unfair treatment of others.

Either we're being taught some pretty crazy stuff with no basis in reality, or this is indeed the way that it is.

I'll let you lot make that call.

Demonstrate understanding of a government choice where affected groups have different viewpoints

It's 1.5. The A option yields...

Work by yourself to complete this work. Refer to the information your group collected.
Identify two or more options that groups with different viewpoints have put forward and the compromises that they are prepared to make.
Identify the main factors you will consider when evaluating each option, and consider the weightings for these factors.
Identify and explain the compromises made by affected individuals and/or groups, and the major costs and benefits (positive and negative) of all your options, by considering the factors and how each group feels about them.
Rank the options based on their costs and benefits.
Recommend a decision to the Board.
Justify your recommendation by explaining the weightings you gave to the different costs and benefits. Refer to the idea that some costs and benefits are more significant than others.
Submit your collated results in the form you have agreed with your teacher.

And the exemplar would be:

The sports coordinator says that the most urgent uniforms to be replaced will need $3,000 to cover them, meaning the balance can be used on the other option.
Staff says that 2 data projectors (if portable) will be the minimum that they need. These would cost $1,000.
The main area that students want improved is the seating by the fields. This will take $4,000, meaning the balance can be used on another option.
Data projectors will improve learning as students will have access to better images. A sizable proportion of our students are identified as being visual learners so this will improve our overall academic achievement in line with the goals of the school (benefit).
Only half of the school’s students will benefit from the data projectors, as half the students don’t take the relevant classes. This may be unfair for these students, who miss out due to the timetable (cost).
Spending $4,000 on seating in the lunch areas and the balance on the data projectors is the best choice. The positive attitude of students was weighted number 1 in the Board’s study on achievement. By having a school they feel proud of, students will be more positive in class and so will indirectly achieve the Board’s goal of improved achievement. Although data projectors do help achievement, they will only target some students, and we weighted highly that the money should benefit the most students possible. The same is true for the uniforms, as only some students will benefit from these and the number of students benefiting was given a high weighting.

I did quite well on that because it's pathetically easy.

[Sorgloss]

Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

Isn't that basically what "Family" restrooms are?

[Forsher]

Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

Isn't that basically what "Family" restrooms are?

This thread's grasp on reality is best described as "convenient".

In effect, that's what Family restrooms are. However, the purpose is different.

Again, the fully contained sink-loo model that is actually seen by me is properly unisex.

One loo is unisex by default.

Separated disabled loos are unisex too. However, that's not the norm. As far as I can tell a disabled loo is included within a male/female one just as often as it is separate.

"Knocking down the wall" is a somewhat dubious claim from a builder's perspective (is it load-bearing, for example?) but perfectly fine here.

[AiliailiA]

Are you claiming authority as a civil engineer? That is, have you yourself designed a toilet block and had it built?

Snippets of that post and the posts it quoted reminded me of an assessment we did way back when (2011) for economics.

That sounds like a No to me. In other words ...

you have no idea what you're talking about, have never designed a toilet block, have never taken a course in city planning and your opinion is utterly and entirely irrelevant.