gender-neutral bathroom mandate? poll

[Liriena]

Why do we need seperate bathrooms?

1) Safety: It's much more safer for women to have separate bathrooms. Less chance of rape and so on.
2) Privacy: Quite simple, really. Men should have privacy to do their thing and the same with women. Quite a few people would find unisex bathrooms uncomfortable for this reason
3) Organization: Men's bathrooms tend to have more urinals and only a couple of stalls, while women's bathrooms only have stalls. You'd have to have both in an unisex bathroom, and women tend to take longer to use the bathroom anyway. It'd just be a huge mess.
4) Tradition: Not everyone has to be changed because the Political Correctness Police says so. World has enough degeneracy already.

1) What about trans women? Are they not at risk in men's restrooms?
2) Because... what? I really don't get this "privacy" thing. It's not like everybody walks around naked in bathrooms, and the fact that stalls exist and even urinals tend to have separations makes this whole "privacy" thing reek of typical reactionary word-dropping.
3) This might just be the only remotely good point you've made.
4) Appeal to tradition? You, of all people, should know better.

[Nevanmaa]

If you have an XXY, you're screwed. If you have XO, you're screwed. If you have XYY, you're screwed. If you have no genitalia, you're screwed.

These are the few exceptions I'd be willing to admit. If you're scientifically proven to have a chromosomial anomality, you could use either restroom.

If you underwent a gender change, you're screwed. If you underwent hormone replacement therapy, you're screwed.

Actions have consequences. If you decide pump your body full of hormones and ask a doctor to cut your genitals, life is going to be more difficult. I am against "gender change" or hormone replacement treatment anyway, so ideally this wouldn't even be a problem.

And it really isn't a problem. No matter how much you take hormone pills you're still the gender you're born as.

[Luveria]

2) Privacy: How is your privacy violated any differently if its someone of the opposite sex compared to someone of the same sex? What about the person being the opposite sex violates your privacy, where if they were the same sex it wouldnt?

Perhaps we should have separate male washrooms for homosexuals because the privacy of straight men is being violated if gays are in the same washrooms.

[Ostroeuropa]

1) Safety: It's much more safer for women to have separate bathrooms. Less chance of rape and so on.
2) Privacy: Quite simple, really. Men should have privacy to do their thing and the same with women. Quite a few people would find unisex bathrooms uncomfortable for this reason
3) Organization: Men's bathrooms tend to have more urinals and only a couple of stalls, while women's bathrooms only have stalls. You'd have to have both in an unisex bathroom, and women tend to take longer to use the bathroom anyway. It'd just be a huge mess.
4) Tradition: Not everyone has to be changed because the Political Correctness Police says so. World has enough degeneracy already.

1) What about trans women? Are they not at risk in men's restrooms?
2) Because... what? I really don't get this "privacy" thing. It's not like everybody walks around naked in bathrooms, and the fact that stalls exist and even urinals tend to have separations makes this whole "privacy" thing reek of typical reactionary word-dropping.
3) This might just be the only remotely good point you've made.
4) Appeal to tradition? You, of all people, should know better.

Organization on 3 is covered in my post.

1) Safety: This isn't the case. Rapists aren't going to obey gender segregation bathroom signs. In addition, by halving the number of people who go in and out of the room you cut in half the number of people capable of interrupting the act.

2) Privacy: How is your privacy violated any differently if its someone of the opposite sex compared to someone of the same sex? What about the person being the opposite sex violates your privacy, where if they were the same sex it wouldnt?

3) Organization: Currently queues can form for the bathroom before we reach 100% capacity, it's possible for there to be a queue at a mere 50% capacity. By desegregating we eliminate this problem. Organization is firmly on the side of desegregation.

4) Tradition: Tradition is not in itself an argument, and is a logical fallacy.

It isn't a good point. It's a bad one.

[Ostroeuropa]

2) Privacy: How is your privacy violated any differently if its someone of the opposite sex compared to someone of the same sex? What about the person being the opposite sex violates your privacy, where if they were the same sex it wouldnt?

Perhaps we should have separate male washrooms for homosexuals because the privacy of straight men is being violated if gays are in the same washrooms.

That seems to be the logical conclusion of their argument if you accept the premise.

[Nevanmaa]

1) What about trans women? Are they not at risk in men's restrooms?

They might be, but the size of trans population is so small that this problem is negligibly small. Women getting molested or raped in unisex bathrooms would be a far larger problem.

2) Because... what? I really don't get this "privacy" thing. It's not like everybody walks around naked in bathrooms, and the fact that stalls exist and even urinals tend to have separations makes this whole "privacy" thing reek of typical reactionary word-dropping.

True. But many people would find it uncomfortable to do their thing when there are people of the opposite sex less than a few feet away from you, even when there's a door behind you and them.

4) Appeal to tradition? You, of all people, should know better.

Tradition is good and should be respected. Change for the sake of change is a bad thing.

[Ostroeuropa]

1) What about trans women? Are they not at risk in men's restrooms?

They might be, but the size of trans population is so small that this problem is negligibly small. Women getting molested or raped in unisex bathrooms would be a far larger problem.

2) Because... what? I really don't get this "privacy" thing. It's not like everybody walks around naked in bathrooms, and the fact that stalls exist and even urinals tend to have separations makes this whole "privacy" thing reek of typical reactionary word-dropping.

True. But many people would find it uncomfortable to do their thing when there are people of the opposite sex less than a few feet away from you, even when there's a door behind you and them.

4) Appeal to tradition? You, of all people, should know better.

Tradition is good and should be respected. Change for the sake of change is a bad thing.

As I pointed out, the risk of molestation and rape is higher in gender segregated bathrooms than in desegregated ones.

[Liriena]

So, what you are saying is that this lady here

should be arbitrarily forced to go to the men's restroom?

If he has a penis, then yes, absolutely.

A man shouldn't really look like that though. Fifty years ago dressing like that would've been out of the question.

You draw the line at genitalia? That's pretty darn arbitrary. How does someone's genitalia determine what gender's restroom they are fit to use? Are not all toilets the same? What about people with ambiguous genitalia?

By the way, the person in the picture identifies as female. With that in mind, I ask that you do not misgender her. Furthermore, your feelings about crossdressing are irrelevant.

[Lost heros]

If you underwent a gender change, you're screwed. If you underwent hormone replacement therapy, you're screwed.

Actions have consequences. If you decide pump your body full of hormones and ask a doctor to cut your genitals, life is going to be more difficult. I am against "gender change" or hormone replacement treatment anyway, so ideally this wouldn't even be a problem.

And it really isn't a problem. No matter how much you take hormone pills you're still the gender you're born as.

Yes, and denying people the right to express themselves as they see fit, is going to have a negative consequence on a lot of those people.

Gender =/= sex. You've been here long enough to know that.

[Des-Bal]

Perhaps we should have separate male washrooms for homosexuals because the privacy of straight men is being violated if gays are in the same washrooms.

Actually raises questions on things like gender segregated dormitories/

[Ostroeuropa]

If he has a penis, then yes, absolutely.

A man shouldn't really look like that though. Fifty years ago dressing like that would've been out of the question.

You draw the line at genitalia? That's pretty darn arbitrary. How does someone's genitalia determine what gender's restroom they are fit to use? Are not all toilets the same? What about people with ambiguous genitalia?

By the way, the person in the picture identifies as female. With that in mind, I ask that you do not misgender her. Furthermore, your feelings about crossdressing are irrelevant.

You're asking the wrong question.
The real question is, how are WE going to determine their genitalia in the event they violate the rules?

Suddenly, privacy goes right out the window as an argument.
The argument in favor of gender segregation is so lousy it defeats itself.

[Lost heros]

1) What about trans women? Are they not at risk in men's restrooms?

They might be, but the size of trans population is so small that this problem is negligibly small. Women getting molested or raped in unisex bathrooms would be a far larger problem.

2) Because... what? I really don't get this "privacy" thing. It's not like everybody walks around naked in bathrooms, and the fact that stalls exist and even urinals tend to have separations makes this whole "privacy" thing reek of typical reactionary word-dropping.

True. But many people would find it uncomfortable to do their thing when there are people of the opposite sex less than a few feet away from you, even when there's a door behind you and them.

4) Appeal to tradition? You, of all people, should know better.

Tradition is good and should be respected. Change for the sake of change is a bad thing.

Good thing this isn't change for the sake of change. This is change for the sake of equality.

[Liriena]

If you have an XXY, you're screwed. If you have XO, you're screwed. If you have XYY, you're screwed. If you have no genitalia, you're screwed.

These are the few exceptions I'd be willing to admit. If you're scientifically proven to have a chromosomial anomality, you could use either restroom.

What? We got to ask people to present medical certificates every time they want to use a public restroom?

If you underwent a gender change, you're screwed. If you underwent hormone replacement therapy, you're screwed.

Actions have consequences. If you decide pump your body full of hormones and ask a doctor to cut your genitals, life is going to be more difficult. I am against "gender change" or hormone replacement treatment anyway, so ideally this wouldn't even be a problem.

And it really isn't a problem. No matter how much you take hormone pills you're still the gender you're born as.

Gender =/= Sex

Furthermore, I'd like to know exactly why you hold onto these transphobic beliefs.

[Dilange]

1) Safety: It's much more safer for women to have separate bathrooms. Less chance of rape and so on.

I really would love for you to teach a "protection against rape" class and say this with a straight face.

2) Privacy: Quite simple, really. Men should have privacy to do their thing and the same with women. Quite a few people would find unisex bathrooms uncomfortable for this reason

Theres things called stalls.

3) Organization: Men's bathrooms tend to have more urinals and only a couple of stalls, while women's bathrooms only have stalls. You'd have to have both in an unisex bathroom, and women tend to take longer to use the bathroom anyway. It'd just be a huge mess.

This is really arbitrary.

4) Tradition: Not everyone has to be changed because the Political Correctness Police says so. World has enough degeneracy already.

So how about dat slavery?

[Luveria]

Perhaps we should have separate male washrooms for homosexuals because the privacy of straight men is being violated if gays are in the same washrooms.

That seems to be the logical conclusion of their argument if you accept the premise.

Then they should be consistent and apply the logical conclusion of it too. If they did that, I might be willing to believe their argument isn't devoid of honesty.

You draw the line at genitalia? That's pretty darn arbitrary. How does someone's genitalia determine what gender's restroom they are fit to use? Are not all toilets the same? What about people with ambiguous genitalia?

By the way, the person in the picture identifies as female. With that in mind, I ask that you do not misgender her. Furthermore, your feelings about crossdressing are irrelevant.

You're asking the wrong question.
The real question is, how are WE going to determine their genitalia in the event they violate the rules?

Suddenly, privacy goes right out the window as an argument.
The argument in favor of gender segregation is so lousy it defeats itself.

Can intersex males and females use either washroom? Of course they can, going by the genitalia argument. This gets stupider and stupider.

[Liriena]

Tradition is good and should be respected.

Demonstrably false. Feudalism, slavery, institutionalized misogyny, disrespect for children's rights, extreme political authoritarianism and anti-scientific beliefs used to be "tradition". Did them being tradition make them inherently "good"?

A custom or belief being old doesn't make it good. It only makes it old. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

[Magna Libero]

2) Privacy: Quite simple, really. Men should have privacy to do their thing and the same with women. Quite a few people would find unisex bathrooms uncomfortable for this reason

Theres things called stalls.

Urinal stalls?

[Nevanmaa]

Yes, and denying people the right to express themselves as they see fit, is going to have a negative consequence on a lot of those people.

Nobody is denying their rights to express themselves. Just don't expect to have special rules and permissions so you can use the wrong toilet. I can't do it, so you can't do it either.

Gender =/= sex. You've been here long enough to know that.

This theory is fundamentally false. Scientifically they are the exact same thing. The theory that gender and sex are separate was invented by left-wing professors just a few decades ago and is actually a philosophical question, not a scientific one. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation pressured professors around the world to accept this deranged concept as a fact in the 60s, and that's why the myth that gender and sex are separate is still taught as a fact.

[Liriena]

Yes, and denying people the right to express themselves as they see fit, is going to have a negative consequence on a lot of those people.

Nobody is denying their rights to express themselves. Just don't expect to have special rules and permissions so you can use the wrong toilet. I can't do it, so you can't do it either.

Gender =/= sex. You've been here long enough to know that.

This theory is fundamentally false. Scientifically they are the exact same thing. The theory that gender and sex are separate was invented by left-wing professors just a few decades ago and is actually a philosophical question, not a scientific one. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation pressured professors around the world to accept this deranged concept as a fact in the 60s, and that's why the myth that gender and sex are separate is still taught as a fact.

Source this bullshit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Tradition is good and should be respected.

Demonstrably false. Feudalism, slavery, institutionalized misogyny, disrespect for children's rights, extreme political authoritarianism and anti-scientific beliefs used to be "tradition". Did them being tradition make them inherently "good"?

A custom or belief being old doesn't make it good. It only makes it old. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

Tradition is never an argument.
At best, laziness is. And it's a very poor one.

"Will changing this actually DO anything?"
"No."
"eEhhh...I cba."

But changing this WILL do something. The question becomes: Is it a good change or a bad change.

[Lost heros]

Yes, and denying people the right to express themselves as they see fit, is going to have a negative consequence on a lot of those people.

Nobody is denying their rights to express themselves. Just don't expect to have special rules and permissions so you can use the wrong toilet. I can't do it, so you can't do it either.

Denying people to use the restroom of the gender they identify with is denying them the right t express themselves as they see fit.

Gender =/= sex. You've been here long enough to know that.

This theory is fundamentally false. Scientifically they are the exact same thing. The theory that gender and sex are separate was invented by left-wing professors just a few decades ago and is actually a philosophical question, not a scientific one. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation pressured professors around the world to accept this deranged concept as a fact in the 60s, and that's why the myth that gender and sex are separate is still taught as a fact.

Source this shit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, and denying people the right to express themselves as they see fit, is going to have a negative consequence on a lot of those people.

Nobody is denying their rights to express themselves. Just don't expect to have special rules and permissions so you can use the wrong toilet. I can't do it, so you can't do it either.

Gender =/= sex. You've been here long enough to know that.

This theory is fundamentally false. Scientifically they are the exact same thing. The theory that gender and sex are separate was invented by left-wing professors just a few decades ago and is actually a philosophical question, not a scientific one. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation pressured professors around the world to accept this deranged concept as a fact in the 60s, and that's why the myth that gender and sex are separate is still taught as a fact.

Are you denying that people with penises can identify as female?
As in, "I think I am a female."

[Eaglleia]

I think the real issue here is that definition of transgender in the op. :/

[Luveria]

I think the real issue here is that definition of transgender in the op. :/

You're right.

Trans-gender = someone that pretends to be a gender they were not born as (sometimes they mutilate their genitals and get plastic surgery).

I would like to see a source for that definition.

[Ostroeuropa]

Trans-gender = someone that pretends to be a gender they were not born as (sometimes they mutilate their genitals and get plastic surgery).

Woh woh, what?
What the fuck?

For one thing, despite my personal gripe against their inclusion in the definition, the definition as it currently stands includes Genderless persons, which makes this straight up wrong BEFORE we even get into the obvious bigotry injected into it.

(Since a genderless person does not pretend to be any gender at all.)


But onto the genders.
I have serious doubts that anyone is "Born" as ANY gender, as it's an identity process and babies don't strike me as having an identity beyond "Me" and "Everything Else."
In fact we go through a process at about age 2 where we suddenly realize that "me" does not include "everything else" and throw a tantrum about it. If anything, we're all born as multi-gendered individuals, since we see mommy and daddy and think "Ah, that's me. Not this me, but another me."

As for "Pretending" to be another gender, it's baffling how you can think this is even possible. It's an identity.
It's my major gripe against the whole thing. It's "I think I am therefore I am" kind of shit.
You think people would choose to be this way? why would they?