Should Public Restrooms Become Gender Neutral?

[Aurora Novus]

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

Because they don't. There are legal and social repercussions for using the restroom of the opposite sex.

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

Just because someone's health may suffer due to their own ingrained bigoted views, doesn't mean supporting those views for the sake of their health is good, yes. Preserving life, good health, these are not always the most just things to do. Hence why there are people who support abortion, or are okay with people drinking themselves to death. Securing one's health is not always the most just thing.

4. I fail to see how separate restrooms are inherently a bad thing.

Because they are a restriction. All restrictions are harms. Now, some restrictions are justified, on the grounds that they prevent greater harms. So the question is, are segregated restrooms justified?

So far, the only consistent reason people having given for wanting them segregated, is personal preference. Which is not a logically valid argument to justify segregation. So, as it stands, no, they are not justifiable.

Does this, itself, mean having "male only" and "female only" restrooms is innately bad? No. What's bad is when you try and FORCE people to abide by these rules, when they are not justifiable. It then becomes an injustice, to everyone, even if they accept it.

So there are only 3 ways to resolve this issue:

1) Show how segregated restrooms are logically justifiable.
2) De-segregate restrooms.
3) Allow people to use whatever restrom they like, regardless of the sign on it, with no legal or social repercussions. Which is essentially option 2.

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?

Not necessarily, no. Just because something is an injustice, doesn't mean the majority dislikes it.

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.

Well, first of all, I wouldn't necessarily use "superior" and "inferior", but "logically justifiable" and "logically unjustifiable". It's not about forcing people to use something that's logically justified per say, it's about NOT forcing people to use something that is logically unjustifiable. There's a difference, albiet subtle difference, but one nonetheless.

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

No I'm not.

You suggest that, by providing unisex rooms in addition to segregated rooms, that over time, people will choose unisex ones by slowly becoming more and more comfortable voiding around the opposite sex.

But how can someone become more comfortable doing so, unless they actually do it? If people don't like going around the same sex, they're not going to do it if they're not forced to. Meaning they'll never "slowly get used it it", because they're not being exposed to it.

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

Because again, the problem isn't the lack of gender-neutral rooms, it's the segregation of sex-specific rooms. The problem is if I want to go into a man's bathroom as a woman, or vice versa, want to go into a woman's bathroom as a man. Simply having gender-neutral alternatives doesn't solve this issue.

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.

Again, it's not about what's "superior" and "inferior", it's about what;s logically justifiable, and what's unjustifiable. What is moral, and what is an injustice.

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.

What's the difference? How do you determine a difference between "I don't want to shit next to a black man" and "I don't want to shit next to a man"? Why is one specifically about the race, and the other not about the sex? Or vice versa, how is one not about the sex, but the other about the race? How do you determine this intent? And how does the intent, in either case, justify the division?

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.

I know people have issues using restrooms even with people of the same gender; I'm one of those people. I usually will sit on toiler for minutes on end if I have to, just to wait for the room to empty out, or for there to be enough noise that someone couldn't hear me go. Sometimes I wander around a store before going to the nearest bathroom, seeing if I can find one of the single stall family restrooms they sometimes have. I'm one of those people, so I get the anxiety.

But society should not be set up to cater to these problems. They are my problems, not anyone else's. I need to deal with them on my own, as do other people. People should not be uncomfortable voiding themselves around someone, simple because they have a penis or vagina. That's ridiculous. You call it needless suffering, I call it forcing people to grow up and get over their issues.

[Forsher]

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.

But I'm not him.

What I am saying is that I have evidence to suggest that there very much is a way to go about this sort of thing and the way he suggested is that way.

Unless, of course,

we're being taught some pretty crazy stuff with no basis in reality.

My personal opinion? That has a basis in reality... either that or what he said only connects because it's plausible.

Oh, and that may not be "a course in city planning" but it's a fundamental necessity for getting anywhere in that.

Remember its name.

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

[Vitaphone Racing]

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 has nothing to do with the majority always getting what they want, so quit strawmanning. This is about toilets being designed with the wants and needs of people in mind. In other words, what the majority wants is crucial when designing a toilet block because it's about keeping as many people as possible happy.

People don't need to have a logical justification for their opinions, yet their opinions are relevant and valid points to anybody designing a facility for public use. Do you get this now?

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.

Trying to please everyone doesn't equate to a tyranny of the majority. Not even close. There has to be tyranny for this to occur, hence the name "tyranny of the majority"

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.

Are we talking about this always being justified because I thought we were talking about shitters? And yes, when designing facilities for the public, attempting to please the majority is more often than not, justified. You can keep saying that trying to please everybody isn't a logically valid argument except you'd be ignoring how and why toilets are even designed in the first place.

You keep spewing this same old "personal opinion isn't valid" rhetoric, and still seem completely numb to the fact that personal opinion is vital if not crucial when desiging civic features.

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.

And sex-separated toilets aren't comfortable and relaxing for anyone because....? The current structure works perfectly well.

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.

Not a fallacy. Look up what a fallacy is.

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.

No, this is a fallacy because you're attempting to draw lines between two vastly different subjects and copy/paste the conclusion from one into another.

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.

Sounds like you're trying to get out of backing your claim which they would improve safety. Makes your claim count for nothing actually.

I'm asking you to make some more claims and prove that they're equal or better. Lets start with why are they better? Provide sources.

[Vitaphone Racing]

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?

I don't need to be.

Desiging and building to demands of the user is engineering 101. It's the first thing taught in your first engineering theory lecture in your first year regardless of what field you select. It doesn't matter if you design space shuttles or toilet blocks, the importance of the customer requirements remains the same.

I'm not the one who's arguing against the professionals, am I?

[Aurora Novus]

This has nothing to do with the majority always getting what they want, so quit strawmanning. This is about toilets being designed with the wants and needs of people in mind. In other words, what the majority wants is crucial when designing a toilet block because it's about keeping as many people as possible happy.

1) You're the one who is continually bringing up "bit the majority wants X". Don't want to argue about it? Stop arguing personal appeal.

2) Whether or not toilets are designed for personal comfort (which I contest, even if they are, is not the main reason, as I mentioned before), that has nothing to do with whether or not rooms should be unisex or not. A toilet it a toilet; aside from urinals, they are not sex specific in any way. The toilets in the men's rooms are the same as the toilets in the women's rooms. So whatever point you're trying to make, it's irrelevant here.

People don't need to have a logical justification for their opinions

Jesus Christ...

Yes, they do, especially if they want people to make their opinions reality for other people. Or would you rather a world where what is legislated is done on fancy and whim?

, yet their opinions are relevant and valid points to anybody designing a facility for public use.

Not necessarily, no.

Do you get this now?

I get what you are trying to say, but what you are trying to say is (1) fundamentally flawed, and (2) irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Trying to please everyone doesn't equate to a tyranny of the majority. Not even close. There has to be tyranny for this to occur, hence the name "tyranny of the majority"

When your entire argument thus far has been "I want things a particular way, and since the majority of people agree, it should be that way, screw what you want", yeah, you are promoting tyranny of the majority. Those have been your only major arguments in favor of justifying segregation. That people want it, and that the majority of people want it, thetefore they should get it.

Putting aside that the above is a logically invalid argument to any serious thinking person, what do you call that, if not tyranny of the majority?

And yes, when designing facilities for the public, attempting to please the majority is more often than not, justified. You can keep saying that trying to please everybody isn't a logically valid argument except you'd be ignoring how and why toilets are even designed in the first place.

You're ignoring however that toilets are designed the way they are, and made for more reasons that simply "people want them". they are primarily made for sanitary reasons, and business will choose to include them in order to draw in customers.

Is personal appeal utilized? Yes. But in conjunction with other reasons. As as you will note, what I have been repeatedly saying is that personal preference, in of itself, is not a valid reason for something. your entire reasoning thus far has been "it's justified because the majority of people want it that way". That is not a logical justification, because all you've done is couple personal preference with majority will, which is nothing more than a forumla for tyranny.

If you coupled personal appeal with something more substantial, perhaps you would have a case. but as it stands, no, even when it comes to civic issues, a majority of people wanting something sa particular way is not, itself, justification to give it to them. There must be broader reasons. More substantial reasons. Reasons to do with public safety, health. efficiency, ect. Not merely "We want it, so give it to us". That is childish and nonsensical.

You keep spewing this same old "personal opinion isn't valid" rhetoric, and still seem completely numb to the fact that personal opinion is vital if not crucial when desiging civic features.

Whether or not it is vital to the way we currently do things has no bearing on whether or not it is just or logically sound. People can and do act illogically on a regular basis. That's not an excuse.

And sex-separated toilets aren't comfortable and relaxing for anyone because....? The current structure works perfectly well.

Because it's not about the toilets. Is that what you think this is about?

This is about the rooms themselves, and not being allowed to enter them. Not the toilets specifically inside of them.

Not a fallacy. Look up what a fallacy is.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning.

You presume that, because I do not hold a certain position in life, or that, presumably, because you've held some position of authority on the subject, that my views are somehow automatically discredited.

However, one can know about something, and never have worked in it. One can be right, without being in a position of authority. Making your argument here a fallacy. An error in reasoning.

I don't think I'm the one here who needs to look up what a fallacy is mate.

No, this is a fallacy because you're attempting to draw lines between two vastly different subjects and copy/paste the conclusion from one into another.

Do you think my comparison is awry? If so, explain. If your only criticism is "those things are different", that doesn't show how the comparison is inaccurate.

You're attempting to argue that personal preference itself is a valid means to do something.

Well, should the murderer get to murder, just because they want to?

If not, then you must concede that personal preference is not, itself, a valid means of legislating something.

Now you may say, as you have been, "It's the personal preference combined with a majority".

Well, what if the majority will of a nation was to teach scientifically false information in class, like "the earth is flat". Would this be justifiable? Would this be moral?

If not, then you must also concede that majority will is not, itself, a valid means to legislate something.[/quote]

sounds like you're trying to get out of backing your claim which they would improve safety. Makes your claim count for nothing actually.

Not at all; I'm simply telling you (1) you cannot expect me to source something that does not exist, (2) that my logical deduction is there, for you to argue against, which you refuse to do, and (3) that you have the burden of proof in this conversation, not me, so get to work. Don't like that? Don't argue the affirmative side.

I'm asking you to make some more claims and prove that they're equal or better. Lets start with why are they better? Provide sources.

I've already given my argument. either critique it or accept it. You want something which is physically impossible to provide, because unisex restrooms do not exist on a large scale. All we can do is speculate.

Not everything requires a source, especially when what is being done is a logical deduction. If you have a problem with any one or more parts of my deduction, prove them wrong. Otherwise, we have no reason to suspect them as being flawed. At best you could say "I find your theory wanting", which would mean we can only conclude that the rooms are equally safe (win for me).

Accept your burden of proof mate. Chop chop. Get to work.

[Grenartia]

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

1. Because they don't. There are legal and social repercussions for using the restroom of the opposite sex.

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

2. Just because someone's health may suffer due to their own ingrained bigoted views, doesn't mean supporting those views for the sake of their health is good, yes. Preserving life, good health, these are not always the most just things to do. Hence why there are people who support abortion, or are okay with people drinking themselves to death. 3. Securing one's health is not always the most just thing.

4. I fail to see how separate restrooms are inherently a bad thing.

4. Because they are a restriction. All restrictions are harms. Now, some restrictions are justified, on the grounds that they prevent greater harms. So the question is, are segregated restrooms justified?

So far, the only consistent reason people having given for wanting them segregated, is personal preference. Which is not a logically valid argument to justify segregation. So, as it stands, no, they are not justifiable.

Does this, itself, mean having "male only" and "female only" restrooms is innately bad? 5. No. What's bad is when you try and FORCE people to abide by these rules, when they are not justifiable. It then becomes an injustice, to everyone, even if they accept it.

So there are only 3 ways to resolve this issue:

1) Show how segregated restrooms are logically justifiable.
2) De-segregate restrooms.
3) Allow people to use whatever restrom they like, regardless of the sign on it, with no legal or social repercussions. Which is essentially option 2.

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?

6. Not necessarily, no. Just because something is an injustice, doesn't mean the majority dislikes it.

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.

7. Well, first of all, I wouldn't necessarily use "superior" and "inferior", but "logically justifiable" and "logically unjustifiable". It's not about forcing people to use something that's logically justified per say, it's about NOT forcing people to use something that is logically unjustifiable. There's a difference, albiet subtle difference, but one nonetheless.

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

No I'm not.

You suggest that, by providing unisex rooms in addition to segregated rooms, that over time, people will choose unisex ones by slowly becoming more and more comfortable voiding around the opposite sex.

8. But how can someone become more comfortable doing so, unless they actually do it? If people don't like going around the same sex, they're not going to do it if they're not forced to. Meaning they'll never "slowly get used it it", because they're not being exposed to it.

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

Because again, the problem isn't the lack of gender-neutral rooms, it's the segregation of sex-specific rooms. 9. The problem is if I want to go into a man's bathroom as a woman, or vice versa, want to go into a woman's bathroom as a man. Simply having gender-neutral alternatives doesn't solve this issue.

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.

Again, it's not about what's "superior" and "inferior", it's about what;s logically justifiable, and what's unjustifiable. What is moral, and what is an injustice.

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.

10. What's the difference? How do you determine a difference between "I don't want to shit next to a black man" and "I don't want to shit next to a man"? Why is one specifically about the race, and the other not about the sex? Or vice versa, how is one not about the sex, but the other about the race? How do you determine this intent? And how does the intent, in either case, justify the division?

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.

11. I know people have issues using restrooms even with people of the same gender; I'm one of those people. I usually will sit on toiler for minutes on end if I have to, just to wait for the room to empty out, or for there to be enough noise that someone couldn't hear me go. Sometimes I wander around a store before going to the nearest bathroom, seeing if I can find one of the single stall family restrooms they sometimes have. I'm one of those people, so I get the anxiety.

12. But society should not be set up to cater to these problems. They are my problems, not anyone else's. I need to deal with them on my own, as do other people. People should not be uncomfortable voiding themselves around someone, simple because they have a penis or vagina. That's ridiculous. You call it needless suffering, 13. I call it forcing people to grow up and get over their issues.

1. If you want to piss with members of other genders, then use the gender-neutral facility. Don't make people who don't want to piss with members of other genders do so. Its called the Golden Rule.

2. Again, not wanting to piss and shit with members of other genders is not inherently bigotry.

3. Not wanting to piss/shit with members of other genders does not inherently violate other people's reasonable rights without their informed consent, so what is the justification for forcing them to do so (and in so doing, violating their reasonable rights without their informed consent).

4. See above.

5. Nobody's (or at least I'm not) trying to force ANYBODY to use male only or female only restrooms. Not forcing people to use gender-neutral facilities =/= forcing people to use male only or female only restrooms.

6. I fail to see how that answers my question.

7. Again, I'm not trying to force somebody to use male only or female only restrooms. I'm trying to advocate for people to be able to choose between using male only or female only restrooms, and gender-neutral facilities.

8. Forced exposure is not the way to achieve it. Over time, people will convince each other to try the gender-netraul facilities on their own, or circumstances (such as over-filled separate restrooms) will necessitate using them. However, this process must be gradual, much like stepping into a hot tub. One does not simply jump into a hot tub all willy-nilly. One eases oneself into it, one set of body parts at a time. Much the same here.

9. Why doesn't a gender-neutral alternative satisfy this issue? Aside from the people who use them, there's nothing inherently different about the separate restrooms (aside from men's rooms having urinals). And there's nothing different about gender-neutral restrooms, aside from the ratio between urinals and stalls, and the fact that anybody of any gender can use them.

10. See # 11.

11. As somebody who has to use the men's room (as I am in the closet regarding my gender identity, and there are no gender-neutral facilities at my school), I also share this anxiety. I literally avoid using the urinals when anybody else is in the room (there's no dividers between them).

12. Admittedly. However, again, I feel the transition to totally gender-neutral facilities must be a gradual one. Not an instantaneous one.

13. People shouldn't be forced to do anything so long as they're not infringing on other's reasonable rights without their informed consent.

[Aurora Novus]

1. If you want to piss with members of other genders, then use the gender-neutral facility. Don't make people who don't want to piss with members of other genders do so. Its called the Golden Rule.

"If you want to piss with black people, than use the non-racist racility. Don't make people who don't want to piss with blacks do so. It's called the Golden Rule."

See the problem? You don't have a right to be exclusionary. You don't have a right to segregate. And for the last time (I hope), creating gender-neutral facilities doesn't solve the problem I am addressing. If you have gender neutral rooms, in addition to segregated rooms, there are still rooms, by virtue of my sex, I cannot enter. That is my complaint.

2. Again, not wanting to piss and shit with members of other genders is not inherently bigotry.

Yes it is. Saying "I don't want you in this room with me because you have X body part" is bigotry.

3. Not wanting to piss/shit with members of other genders does not inherently violate other people's reasonable rights without their informed consent

Yes it does, because if I do not desire to consent to the rules regarding the segregation of bathrooms, I am forced to against my will. I don't want to abide by these rules and social customs.

so what is the justification for forcing them to do so (and in so doing, violating their reasonable rights without their informed consent).

De-segregated rooms dont need justification; they are the natural state of things. As segregation is a restriction, it requires justification.

The lack of justification for segregated rooms is what justifies them being unisex.

5. Nobody's (or at least I'm not) trying to force ANYBODY to use male only or female only restrooms. Not forcing people to use gender-neutral facilities =/= forcing people to use male only or female only restrooms.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying your forcing me and others to not be able to enter male or female only rooms. That is, again, the entire basis of my complaint. Not the lack of a gender-neutral option; the existence of the segregation.

6. I fail to see how that answers my question.

You asked if, logically speaking, people should be flowing to the gender-neutral room, if segregated rooms are unjustified. This is not necessarily true, as it is entirely possible for the majority of people to approve of the segregated, unjust rooms ,despite the fact that they are unjust. And in fact, that seems to largely be the case.

Just because someone likes or dislikes something, has no bearing on whether it is just or unjust. Consequently, that means someone can approve of the unjust option, and reject the just option.

Do you understand now?

7. Again, I'm not trying to force somebody to use male only or female only restrooms.

And again, that's not my complaint.

My complaint is not being allowed to walk into a "men's only" or "women's only" room, if I am of the opposite sex.

I'm trying to advocate for people to be able to choose between using male only or female only restrooms, and gender-neutral facilities.

I understand that's what you're trying to advocate.

But that doesn't solve my problem, nor does it solve the problem of the lack of justification for segregated rooms.

8. Forced exposure is not the way to achieve it. Over time, people will convince each other to try the gender-netraul facilities on their own, or circumstances (such as over-filled separate restrooms) will necessitate using them. However, this process must be gradual, much like stepping into a hot tub. One does not simply jump into a hot tub all willy-nilly. One eases oneself into it, one set of body parts at a time. Much the same here.

Do you have any reason to suspect this would even occur or work? How do you know that those who use segregated roos would not become bigoted towards the neutral rooms, and look down upon or even harass those who enter them? What reason do we have to think that giving a different option, without encouraging people to use it, will get them to use it? That's preposterous.

Further more, you're still causing people to suffer unjustly under such a system. I'd rather see a majority suffer due to their own bigotry, than a minority suffer due to unjust oppression.

9. Why doesn't a gender-neutral alternative satisfy this issue?

Because as I stated above, my issue isn't with the lack of a gender-neutral option; it's with the existence of segregated rooms. I do not think there should be "men only" and "women only" facilities. There is no reason to divide the sexes in such a manner, and there is no sound reason to prevent me from walking into a men's room, or women's room, if I'm a man. That is my problem. The segregation itself is my problem.

side from the people who use them, there's nothing inherently different about the separate restrooms (aside from men's rooms having urinals).

Exactly.

So what's the point in separating people into the different rooms? If the rooms are the same, why should one group be barred from a particular room? There is no logic to it. And if there is no logic to it, to punish me for not abiding by it, is an injustice.

Are you starting to get my complaint now?

12. Admittedly. However, again, I feel the transition to totally gender-neutral facilities must be a gradual one. Not an instantaneous one.

I disagree with transitioning, simply because it still leaves people to suffer unjustly. Adult human beings are not children, and they should not be treated as such. They can handle themselves. They will adapt. Those who, for whatever reason, cannot, should seek help, or find some way to deal with their issue themselves. But for society to cater to their problems, at the expense of the just treatment of other members, is morally abhorrent in my eyes.

13. People shouldn't be forced to do anything so long as they're not infringing on other's reasonable rights without their informed consent.

I agree more or less.

The problem is, segregated rooms infringe upon my right to just treatment.

[Ayreonia]

Oh no no no.

I don't want to stand in line for half an hour to take a piss, thank you.

Besides, have any of you dudes ever been to a ladies' room? I've worked at McDonald's (my darkest hour) and cleaned those. Sweet Baby Jesus on a stake, those things are nasty. And don't get me started on the smell.

[Dyakovo]

I only use urinals when there is no other option.

I don't ever see urinals being taken out of bathrooms permanently, at least not anywhere in the near future.

If we are going to have unisex bathrooms they better remove them.

Why?

[Dyakovo]

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

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

All I can think of is that he's saying/implying that if he walks into a restroom and there's a woman there he'll be compelled to rape her...

[Ethel mermania]

If we are going to have unisex bathrooms they better remove them.

Why?

becuase most women dont use urinals,
when you find one who does... marry her.

[Desperate Measures]

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

You only care about your own shit.

[Ayreonia]

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

You only care about your own shit.

snortlol

[Hemenster]

Classic Brighton.

[Hemenster]

1. If you want to piss with members of other genders, then use the gender-neutral facility. Don't make people who don't want to piss with members of other genders do so. Its called the Golden Rule.

"If you want to piss with black people, than use the non-racist racility. Don't make people who don't want to piss with blacks do so. It's called the Golden Rule."

See the problem? You don't have a right to be exclusionary. You don't have a right to segregate. And for the last time (I hope), creating gender-neutral facilities doesn't solve the problem I am addressing. If you have gender neutral rooms, in addition to segregated rooms, there are still rooms, by virtue of my sex, I cannot enter. That is my complaint.

2. Again, not wanting to piss and shit with members of other genders is not inherently bigotry.

Yes it is. Saying "I don't want you in this room with me because you have X body part" is bigotry.

3. Not wanting to piss/shit with members of other genders does not inherently violate other people's reasonable rights without their informed consent

Yes it does, because if I do not desire to consent to the rules regarding the segregation of bathrooms, I am forced to against my will. I don't want to abide by these rules and social customs.

so what is the justification for forcing them to do so (and in so doing, violating their reasonable rights without their informed consent).

De-segregated rooms dont need justification; they are the natural state of things. As segregation is a restriction, it requires justification.

The lack of justification for segregated rooms is what justifies them being unisex.

5. Nobody's (or at least I'm not) trying to force ANYBODY to use male only or female only restrooms. Not forcing people to use gender-neutral facilities =/= forcing people to use male only or female only restrooms.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying your forcing me and others to not be able to enter male or female only rooms. That is, again, the entire basis of my complaint. Not the lack of a gender-neutral option; the existence of the segregation.

6. I fail to see how that answers my question.

You asked if, logically speaking, people should be flowing to the gender-neutral room, if segregated rooms are unjustified. This is not necessarily true, as it is entirely possible for the majority of people to approve of the segregated, unjust rooms ,despite the fact that they are unjust. And in fact, that seems to largely be the case.

Just because someone likes or dislikes something, has no bearing on whether it is just or unjust. Consequently, that means someone can approve of the unjust option, and reject the just option.

Do you understand now?

7. Again, I'm not trying to force somebody to use male only or female only restrooms.

And again, that's not my complaint.

My complaint is not being allowed to walk into a "men's only" or "women's only" room, if I am of the opposite sex.

I'm trying to advocate for people to be able to choose between using male only or female only restrooms, and gender-neutral facilities.

I understand that's what you're trying to advocate.

But that doesn't solve my problem, nor does it solve the problem of the lack of justification for segregated rooms.

8. Forced exposure is not the way to achieve it. Over time, people will convince each other to try the gender-netraul facilities on their own, or circumstances (such as over-filled separate restrooms) will necessitate using them. However, this process must be gradual, much like stepping into a hot tub. One does not simply jump into a hot tub all willy-nilly. One eases oneself into it, one set of body parts at a time. Much the same here.

Do you have any reason to suspect this would even occur or work? How do you know that those who use segregated roos would not become bigoted towards the neutral rooms, and look down upon or even harass those who enter them? What reason do we have to think that giving a different option, without encouraging people to use it, will get them to use it? That's preposterous.

Further more, you're still causing people to suffer unjustly under such a system. I'd rather see a majority suffer due to their own bigotry, than a minority suffer due to unjust oppression.

9. Why doesn't a gender-neutral alternative satisfy this issue?

Because as I stated above, my issue isn't with the lack of a gender-neutral option; it's with the existence of segregated rooms. I do not think there should be "men only" and "women only" facilities. There is no reason to divide the sexes in such a manner, and there is no sound reason to prevent me from walking into a men's room, or women's room, if I'm a man. That is my problem. The segregation itself is my problem.

side from the people who use them, there's nothing inherently different about the separate restrooms (aside from men's rooms having urinals).

Exactly.

So what's the point in separating people into the different rooms? If the rooms are the same, why should one group be barred from a particular room? There is no logic to it. And if there is no logic to it, to punish me for not abiding by it, is an injustice.

Are you starting to get my complaint now?

12. Admittedly. However, again, I feel the transition to totally gender-neutral facilities must be a gradual one. Not an instantaneous one.

I disagree with transitioning, simply because it still leaves people to suffer unjustly. Adult human beings are not children, and they should not be treated as such. They can handle themselves. They will adapt. Those who, for whatever reason, cannot, should seek help, or find some way to deal with their issue themselves. But for society to cater to their problems, at the expense of the just treatment of other members, is morally abhorrent in my eyes.

13. People shouldn't be forced to do anything so long as they're not infringing on other's reasonable rights without their informed consent.

I agree more or less.

The problem is, segregated rooms infringe upon my right to just treatment.

That's all well and good mate, but go into a women's public loo and try to tell them you have a right to be in there as they scream at you to fuck off.

[Minoriteeburg]

If we are going to have unisex bathrooms they better remove them.

Why?

I agree it makes no sense. We already have men's rooms with urinals and stalls. If they become unisex, it will be set up the same way.

[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.

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

Nonsense. Do you know how much biofuel we could produce with all those feces?

[Vitaphone Racing]

This has nothing to do with the majority always getting what they want, so quit strawmanning. This is about toilets being designed with the wants and needs of people in mind. In other words, what the majority wants is crucial when designing a toilet block because it's about keeping as many people as possible happy.

1) You're the one who is continually bringing up "bit the majority wants X". Don't want to argue about it? Stop arguing personal appeal.

2) Whether or not toilets are designed for personal comfort (which I contest, even if they are, is not the main reason, as I mentioned before), that has nothing to do with whether or not rooms should be unisex or not. A toilet it a toilet; aside from urinals, they are not sex specific in any way. The toilets in the men's rooms are the same as the toilets in the women's rooms. So whatever point you're trying to make, it's irrelevant here.

Honestly, if you aren't going to read what I write and respond to what you think I wrote, I'm not going to continue this debate. I have not once said the majority always get their way so don't put this shit on me okay? Stop it.

Secondly, you completely missed the point. I'm getting really sick of repeating myself so just read what I wrote again.

People don't need to have a logical justification for their opinions

Jesus Christ...

Yes, they do, especially if they want people to make their opinions reality for other people. Or would you rather a world where what is legislated is done on fancy and whim?

Opinions need to be logically justified..... rofl.

These opinions aren't being written and inscribed into law, they're being catered for. That's really all that's going on here. Again, you've pulled out a strawman and argue against something I haven't said, with a nice touch of fallcy of accident in there as well

, yet their opinions are relevant and valid points to anybody designing a facility for public use.

Not necessarily, no.

Wrong answer.

Do you get this now?

I get what you are trying to say, but what you are trying to say is (1) fundamentally flawed, and (2) irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Being an engineer when engineering toilets is irrelevant... right.

Trying to please everyone doesn't equate to a tyranny of the majority. Not even close. There has to be tyranny for this to occur, hence the name "tyranny of the majority"

When your entire argument thus far has been "I want things a particular way, and since the majority of people agree, it should be that way, screw what you want", yeah, you are promoting tyranny of the majority. Those have been your only major arguments in favor of justifying segregation. That people want it, and that the majority of people want it, thetefore they should get it.

Putting aside that the above is a logically invalid argument to any serious thinking person, what do you call that, if not tyranny of the majority?

Yeah, because "I want things a particular way, and even if the majority of don't people agree, it should be that way, screw what they want" is an even worse logic and isn't how you please people. I'm glad you aren't a city planner.

It isn't tyranny of the majority because there is no tyranny.

And yes, when designing facilities for the public, attempting to please the majority is more often than not, justified. You can keep saying that trying to please everybody isn't a logically valid argument except you'd be ignoring how and why toilets are even designed in the first place.

You're ignoring however that toilets are designed the way they are, and made for more reasons that simply "people want them". they are primarily made for sanitary reasons, and business will choose to include them in order to draw in customers.

No, people need toilets for sanitary reasons. Since they need them and will have to use them, they want them to be a comfortable place.

Is personal appeal utilized? Yes. But in conjunction with other reasons. As as you will note, what I have been repeatedly saying is that personal preference, in of itself, is not a valid reason for something. your entire reasoning thus far has been "it's justified because the majority of people want it that way". That is not a logical justification, because all you've done is couple personal preference with majority will, which is nothing more than a forumla for tyranny.

You see, in city planning and engineering, customer appeal is up there with your biggest concerns along with money, space and time. This is all I need to reason. This is the number one reason why any toilet is designed the way it is. Being appealing to potential users is justification of something in itself when it comes civic features. This is why expensive tiles and shit are used on the walls to make it all look pretty. Costs a tonne but it's still done.

You can keep saying it isn't a logical justification for anything, but as far as planning goes, it is.

If you coupled personal appeal with something more substantial, perhaps you would have a case. but as it stands, no, even when it comes to civic issues, a majority of people wanting something sa particular way is not, itself, justification to give it to them. There must be broader reasons. More substantial reasons. Reasons to do with public safety, health. efficiency, ect. Not merely "We want it, so give it to us". That is childish and nonsensical.

I could argue a case for all of these things, but I don't need to. Because pleasing the public is indeed justification to give it to them. You can look at examples of this the next time you visit local features; note the decorations, pretty floor and wall tiles and use of metals and woods as finishings.

You might not see it this way but your view is at odds with how things are actually done in the world.

You keep spewing this same old "personal opinion isn't valid" rhetoric, and still seem completely numb to the fact that personal opinion is vital if not crucial when desiging civic features.

Whether or not it is vital to the way we currently do things has no bearing on whether or not it is just or logically sound. People can and do act illogically on a regular basis. That's not an excuse.

The only reason you don't think it's logical is because you don't think people's opinions are valid. Unfortunately, to the civic planning community, they are. So the way we are doing things is in fact logical.

And sex-separated toilets aren't comfortable and relaxing for anyone because....? The current structure works perfectly well.

Because it's not about the toilets. Is that what you think this is about?

This is about the rooms themselves, and not being allowed to enter them. Not the toilets specifically inside of them.

Yeah, and how many people actually give a shit about this enough to want the current system changed?

Not a fallacy. Look up what a fallacy is.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning.

You presume that, because I do not hold a certain position in life, or that, presumably, because you've held some position of authority on the subject, that my views are somehow automatically discredited.

However, one can know about something, and never have worked in it. One can be right, without being in a position of authority. Making your argument here a fallacy. An error in reasoning.

I don't think I'm the one here who needs to look up what a fallacy is mate.

No, my presumption is that you have zero experience at all in what you're trying to argue so your opinion isn't nearly as valid as someone who has that experience. That isn't a fallacy, that's common sense. This has nothing to do with authority.

No, this is a fallacy because you're attempting to draw lines between two vastly different subjects and copy/paste the conclusion from one into another.

Do you think my comparison is awry? If so, explain. If your only criticism is "those things are different", that doesn't show how the comparison is inaccurate.

You're attempting to argue that personal preference itself is a valid means to do something.

Well, should the murderer get to murder, just because they want to?

If not, then you must concede that personal preference is not, itself, a valid means of legislating something.

Now you may say, as you have been, "It's the personal preference combined with a majority".

Well, what if the majority will of a nation was to teach scientifically false information in class, like "the earth is flat". Would this be justifiable? Would this be moral?

If not, then you must also concede that majority will is not, itself, a valid means to legislate something.

Of course it's awry. The legal system does not take into account personal opinions. Civic planning does. This is a key difference therefore can be no comparison between them. Science does not take in personal opinions when forming theories. Civic planning does. No comparison between these either. Fallacy of accident.

sounds like you're trying to get out of backing your claim which they would improve safety. Makes your claim count for nothing actually.

Not at all; I'm simply telling you (1) you cannot expect me to source something that does not exist, (2) that my logical deduction is there, for you to argue against, which you refuse to do, and (3) that you have the burden of proof in this conversation, not me, so get to work. Don't like that? Don't argue the affirmative side.

I'm glad you said it doesn't exist. This means your claim is invalid which was all I was trying to get out of you. I'm not arguing that it isn't logical that doubling the traffic might decrease crime, I'm asking you to tell me to what extent crime is reduced. I don't have any burden of proof at all. In case you haven't noticed, I have gone to great lengths to avoid making claims in this conversation and have only made one so far. You really need to read things more closely because I am becoming very tired of repeating myself.

I'm asking you to make some more claims and prove that they're equal or better. Lets start with why are they better? Provide sources.

I've already given my argument. either critique it or accept it. You want something which is physically impossible to provide, because unisex restrooms do not exist on a large scale. All we can do is speculate.

Your argument is invalid without evidence. I don't care if no evidence exists, it doesn't mean I have to accept it.

Not everything requires a source, especially when what is being done is a logical deduction. If you have a problem with any one or more parts of my deduction, prove them wrong. Otherwise, we have no reason to suspect them as being flawed. At best you could say "I find your theory wanting", which would mean we can only conclude that the rooms are equally safe (win for me).

Are you fucking kidding me? Ever heard of the scientific method? Everything, I repeat everything, requires a source. There is really nothing wrong with your deduction; it's your application which raises problems. I want to know how much crime will be reduced by, if it will be reduced at all. I'm not asking you to prove safety in numbers or that opening up the rooms to both sexes will increase traffic. And at this stage I'm saying your argument is invalid because you can't prove that doubling the traffic around toilets will reduce crime.

Accept your burden of proof mate. Chop chop. Get to work.

I still haven't made a claim, I'm still wading through yours.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Damn, I'm disappointed that I decided to leave this thread be for a day because Novus's arguments were too fucking stupid for me to bother. The sudden influx of intelligent argumentation is nice, and relieving to see.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I, on the other hand, am done with this thread for the time being because I'm starting to argue in circles.

So I'm just going to restate my original claim that whether or not toilets are unisex or separated should be decided on a case by case basis. It also would not hurt to add in a few extra multi-purpose toilets around each block that can cater for disabled, parents with young kids and parents with babies who need to be changed along with anyone else who might want to use them.

[Churchilland]

No. Just no.

[Tsuntion]

No. Just no.

Why are they such a terrible thing that must never happen (with their badness being so obvious that no explanation is needed)?

[Aurora Novus]

That's all well and good mate, but go into a women's public loo and try to tell them you have a right to be in there as they scream at you to fuck off.

I understand that.

That's...my complaint.

[Ethel mermania]

I, on the other hand, am done with this thread for the time being because I'm starting to argue in circles.

So I'm just going to restate my original claim that whether or not toilets are unisex or separated should be decided on a case by case basis. It also would not hurt to add in a few extra multi-purpose toilets around each block that can cater for disabled, parents with young kids and parents with babies who need to be changed along with anyone else who might want to use them.

local community standards, mayhaps?

fwiw i have been in unisex bathrooms, everyone has there own completely concealed stalls, only the washing up area is shared.

as to crime, both of them were in low crime areas to begin with (arlanda and schtipol airports)., i dont know if studies have been done on it.

[The Steel Magnolia]

That's all well and good mate, but go into a women's public loo and try to tell them you have a right to be in there as they scream at you to fuck off.

I understand that.

That's...my complaint.

As you're so fond of saying...

Fucking deal with it.