Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

[Jamzmania]

Ever heard "if it ain't broke don't fix it"?

Again, our 'traditions' are very recent. Bringing the toilet inside is a very recent innovation. Not just sticking your arse out of the window and shitting in the street is pretty recent.

We've been 'fixing it' on this particular issue for quite some time, especially in the last century - why suddenly get squeamish about change?

Because the change is not beneficial.

[Grave_n_idle]

No more so than the supposed responses.

But at the heart of it, isn't this basically a discussion about taking the man/woman side off the door of the toilet, and making a room that anyone can use? That doesn't sound like a bad idea to me - making facilities available for everyone to use seems like a GOOD idea.

It isn't the burden of us to argue why we should keep the current well-established system. It is the burden of them to convince people why we should go through such as hassle, and their reasoning is lacking.

what exactly is the 'hassle', here? Taking the little man and woman symbols off the doors?

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, our 'traditions' are very recent. Bringing the toilet inside is a very recent innovation. Not just sticking your arse out of the window and shitting in the street is pretty recent.

We've been 'fixing it' on this particular issue for quite some time, especially in the last century - why suddenly get squeamish about change?

Because the change is not beneficial.

Good, at least you're abandoning 'tradition' as one of the arguments.

Now... how are you measuring benefit?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Jupiter praise demon wtf

Daemonicola means someone who worships devils, I was sarcastically directing it at you because of the false religion bit.

what exactly is the 'hassle', here? Taking the little man and woman symbols off the doors?

That might not sound like much, but when you start factoring in all those doors it'll add up

[Jamzmania]

It isn't the burden of us to argue why we should keep the current well-established system. It is the burden of them to convince people why we should go through such as hassle, and their reasoning is lacking.

what exactly is the 'hassle', here? Taking the little man and woman symbols off the doors?

Or knocking down the walls between the two rooms and possibly removing the urinals.

[Redsection]

Untraditional to who ancient Romans.

No. Un-traditional to post-Roman Europeans.

Most of the last two thousand years, 'tradition' with regards to using the facilities amounted to crapping wherever you were if you weren't at the house, pooping in a hole in your garden, or sticking your arse out of a window.

If 'tradition' is your argument... why are you arguing in favour of this totally new and untraditional technology and approach we have right now?

Yeah I'm also not an animal,or post European so I never had to crap anywhere like a garden

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Men don't require urinals.

Exactly.
With the introduction of unisex bathrooms urinals would immediatly ceased to exist, and that would be good for women, since most women don't like such things.
But I don't think that's the main point.

woman's average wait time is decreased (since some men are in the queue whereas before it was all women, and presumably every building will continue to maintain the same number of facilities)

some group does benefit while some other group has to pay because it has a historical privilege to equalise

its the same as wealth redistribution, a historically disadvantaged group gets financed by taxes mostly paid by a historically priviledged group; except here its in terms of wait time

I understand and even agree with your desire to remove male privilege.
But I don't think it would work well.
I there's a chance that within unisex bathrooms we would see more sexual harassments and rapes. Maybe just only a little more, but still more, not less.
And even a single rape more is tragedy.

The solution is substantive equality: women use bathrooms more than males, and we use, on average, bathrooms for a little longer time.
More bathrooms for women, or larger bathrooms for women.
That wouldn't even hurt males, since they would be allowed to keep their "precious" urinals.

Urinals aren't precious, it just allows for men to go in and out, instead of taking a stall.

[Grave_n_idle]

No. Un-traditional to post-Roman Europeans.

Most of the last two thousand years, 'tradition' with regards to using the facilities amounted to crapping wherever you were if you weren't at the house, pooping in a hole in your garden, or sticking your arse out of a window.

If 'tradition' is your argument... why are you arguing in favour of this totally new and untraditional technology and approach we have right now?

Yeah I'm also not an animal,or post European so I never had to crap anywhere like a garden

I'm assuming you are descended from humans?

[Redsection]

Yeah I'm also not an animal,or post European so I never had to crap anywhere like a garden

I'm assuming you are descended from humans?

Let's say not a filthy common idiot. My family has never done anything so atrocious as crap out of windows.

[Grave_n_idle]

what exactly is the 'hassle', here? Taking the little man and woman symbols off the doors?

Or knocking down the walls between the two rooms and possibly removing the urinals.

Why would you have to do that?

If a room has a cubicle and a urinal, where's the disadvantage if a woman using the cubicle while a man uses the urinal?

(That's just an example - I'm trying to explore why you're talking such extensive remodelling as tearing down walls).

But even if we did decide to just merge facilities, knocking rooms together and replacing gendered urinals with gender-neutral facilities... how much of a hassle is that? Upgrading facilities happens all the time - you'd just roll it into your ongoing program of renovation.

[Jamzmania]

Because the change is not beneficial.

Good, at least you're abandoning 'tradition' as one of the arguments.

Now... how are you measuring benefit?

Tradition was never an argument I used.

A benefit is something that actually helps you. Unisex bathrooms don't help anyone and would only increase wait time and make everyone uncomfortable.

[Dyakovo]

No more so than the supposed responses.

But at the heart of it, isn't this basically a discussion about taking the man/woman side off the door of the toilet, and making a room that anyone can use? That doesn't sound like a bad idea to me - making facilities available for everyone to use seems like a GOOD idea.

It isn't the burden of us to argue why we should keep the current well-established system. It is the burden of them to convince people why we should go through such as hassle, and their reasoning is lacking.

Well, seeing as a number of unrefuted reasons have been given for changing it, I'd say that the burden is now on you to show why it shouldn't.

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

A de-segregation of bathrooms would have more negative effects though:

- Potential increase of sexual harassment
- Longer waiting times
- People feeling uncomfortable due to sharing the same public bathroom with the opposite gender

[Dyakovo]

what exactly is the 'hassle', here? Taking the little man and woman symbols off the doors?

Or knocking down the walls between the two rooms and possibly removing the urinals.

Neither of which would actually be necessary.

[Chessmistress]

It isn't the burden of us to argue why we should keep the current well-established system. It is the burden of them to convince people why we should go through such as hassle, and their reasoning is lacking.

Well, seeing as a number of unrefuted reasons have been given for changing it, I'd say that the burden is now on you to show why it shouldn't.

Except from a supposed "decrease of othering", what are the supposed advantages to switch to unisex bathrooms?

[Dyakovo]

I'm assuming you are descended from humans?

Let's say not a filthy common idiot. My family has never done anything so atrocious as crap out of windows.

I can guarantee they have.

[Jamzmania]

Or knocking down the walls between the two rooms and possibly removing the urinals.

Neither of which would actually be necessary.

If you're going to keeps he two separate rooms why not just keep things how they are? Just about nothing would change.

[Dyakovo]

Good, at least you're abandoning 'tradition' as one of the arguments.

Now... how are you measuring benefit?

Tradition was never an argument I used.

A benefit is something that actually helps you. Unisex bathrooms don't help anyone and would only increase wait time and make everyone uncomfortable.

That's a lie.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm assuming you are descended from humans?

Let's say not a filthy common idiot. My family has never done anything so atrocious as crap out of windows.

Assuming your signature genuinely describes your heritage:

"I am part american indian,french,dutch,scotch-irish,english,spainish,german,and mayan indian"

French, Dutch. Scottish, Irish, English, Spanish and German all have fairly similar histories with regard to sanitation innovation of over the last few thousand years. All have Classical sanitation as the highpoint all the way up to the last hundred or so years, and most of those two thousand years was people crapping where they stood, crapping in holes in their own gardens, and crapping out of windows if they lived in an urban environment. None of them had using the toilet as a particularly private practise.

Interestingly, the Mayan civilisation appear to have had communal toilets, much like the Romans had, with a similar shared running-water drain technology.

Native Americans are about the only gray area, vis-a-vis toilet habits - although Pueblo Indian sites have evidence of communal water usage and that tends to historically correspond with communal toilets.

So, in all likelihood, 70% of your ancestors two hundred years ago were shitting in their own gardens or out of windows, and the rest were using Roman-style communal latrines.

[Dyakovo]

Well, seeing as a number of unrefuted reasons have been given for changing it, I'd say that the burden is now on you to show why it shouldn't.

Except from a supposed "decrease of othering", what are the supposed advantages to switch to unisex bathrooms?

Read the thread.

[Redsection]

Let's say not a filthy common idiot. My family has never done anything so atrocious as crap out of windows.

Assuming your signature genuinely describes your heritage:

"I am part american indian,french,dutch,scotch-irish,english,spainish,german,and mayan indian"

French, Dutch. Scottish, Irish, English, Spanish and German all have fairly similar histories with regard to sanitation innovation of over the last few thousand years. All have Classical sanitation as the highpoint all the way up to the last hundred or so years, and most of those two thousand years was people crapping where they stood, crapping in holes in their own gardens, and crapping out of windows if they lived in an urban environment. None of them had using the toilet as a particularly private practise.

Interestingly, the Mayan civilisation appear to have had communal toilets, much like the Romans had, with a similar shared running-water drain technology.

Native Americans are about the only gray area, vis-a-vis toilet habits - although Pueblo Indian sites have evidence of communal water usage and that tends to historically correspond with communal toilets.

So, in all likelihood, 70% of your ancestors two hundred years ago were shitting in their own gardens or out of windows, and the rest were using Roman-style communal latrines.

Not my British and German,check flag

[Grave_n_idle]

A de-segregation of bathrooms would have more negative effects though:

- Potential increase of sexual harassment
- Longer waiting times
- People feeling uncomfortable due to sharing the same public bathroom with the opposite gender

1) Since desegregated doesn't necessarily mean 'combined', this one is probably being over-exaggerated.

2) Speculative. There's no reason to assume waiting times would be longer. On average, they'd probably decrease, since individuals would have more choices of facilities to use.

3) People often feel uncomfortable using public bathrooms with the SAME gender, too. But that taboo is because it's what we're used to - not for any objective reason.

[Chessmistress]

Except from a supposed "decrease of othering", what are the supposed advantages to switch to unisex bathrooms?

Read the thread.

I wish your explanation.
There are just only two advantages: a supposed "decrease of othering" and removing a male privilege - that last one is real, but, still unisex bathrooms probably wouldn't mean less queue for women (also because queues are quite uncommon), and above all unisex bathrooms are very likely to increase sexual harassments and rapes.

[Grave_n_idle]

Assuming your signature genuinely describes your heritage:

"I am part american indian,french,dutch,scotch-irish,english,spainish,german,and mayan indian"

French, Dutch. Scottish, Irish, English, Spanish and German all have fairly similar histories with regard to sanitation innovation of over the last few thousand years. All have Classical sanitation as the highpoint all the way up to the last hundred or so years, and most of those two thousand years was people crapping where they stood, crapping in holes in their own gardens, and crapping out of windows if they lived in an urban environment. None of them had using the toilet as a particularly private practise.

Interestingly, the Mayan civilisation appear to have had communal toilets, much like the Romans had, with a similar shared running-water drain technology.

Native Americans are about the only gray area, vis-a-vis toilet habits - although Pueblo Indian sites have evidence of communal water usage and that tends to historically correspond with communal toilets.

So, in all likelihood, 70% of your ancestors two hundred years ago were shitting in their own gardens or out of windows, and the rest were using Roman-style communal latrines.

Not my British and German,check flag

Tiny coloured blobs means your ancestors (20%, anyway) didn't crap like the rest of Europe? It seems likely you're imagining history somewhat differently to how it actually happened.

[Chessmistress]

A de-segregation of bathrooms would have more negative effects though:

- Potential increase of sexual harassment
- Longer waiting times
- People feeling uncomfortable due to sharing the same public bathroom with the opposite gender

1) Since desegregated doesn't necessarily mean 'combined', this one is probably being over-exaggerated.

The difference between "de-segregated" and "combined" is?

People often feel uncomfortable using public bathrooms with the SAME gender, too. But that taboo is because it's what we're used to - not for any objective reason.

That's not a taboo, that's pretty logical: people performing intimate things near unknown persons feel uncomfortable. All humans are so. The idea of what is "intimate" changes through different cultures, but in ALL cultures people performing intimate things near unknown persons feel uncomfortable.
I don't think we could totally erase the concept of "intimacy", nor I think it would be good or useful.
Erasing the whole concept of gender would be more easy to achieve, and more useful.