Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

[Grave_n_idle]

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

The difference between a unisex toilet and a communal one.

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.

Already thoroughly addressed and rebutted.

[Dyakovo]

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

So they just spontaneously popped into existence some time after the 16th century?

[Jamzmania]

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

The difference between a unisex toilet and a communal one.

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.

Already thoroughly addressed and rebutted.

Very few people want to drop their drawers in the same room as someone of the opposite sex (except on certain situations), especially with such easily bypass-able cover. This goes for both men and women, and, again, there's no reason to make them.

[Chessmistress]

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.

Already thoroughly addressed and rebutted.

"Addressed" and "rebutted" without any proof, just only with suppositions.
I still think that for a real Feminist even a little, very narrow, chance, that something could increase sexual harassments and rapes should be enough.
Unisex bathrooms are the very opposite of women's safe spaces.
Also, ALL women-only spaces would cease to exist in consequence of the introduction of unisex bathrooms: in example you cannot ask for women-only wagons on a train while at the same time having around just only unisex bathrooms.

[Grave_n_idle]

The difference between a unisex toilet and a communal one.



Already thoroughly addressed and rebutted.

Very few people want to drop their drawers in the same room as someone of the opposite sex (except on certain situations), especially with such easily bypass-able cover. This goes for both men and women, and, again, there's no reason to make them.

Very few people want to drop their draws in the same room as someone of the SAME sex, either - and yet we (using your terminology) 'make them'.

I'm not sure where gender is even fitting into this, to be honest - are you saying you object to someone of the opposite sex taking a huge dump a few feet away from you... but you don't mind so long as it's someone of the same gender?

[Grave_n_idle]

Already thoroughly addressed and rebutted.

"Addressed" and "rebutted" without any proof, just only with suppositions.

Wrong.

Up until the last century or two, every culture we have physical evidence for having communal water supply seems to have had communal toilet facilities that capitalised on that phenomenon, and every culture that has had to operate without that type of water supply has had some combination of nomadic elimination, garden outhouses and urban street sewage.

That's not supposition - that's thousands of years of recorded and, in some cases, still existing, history.

This communal toilet taboo is a totally new phenomenon, and limited almost entirely to anglophone and Euro nations.

[Irona]

Very few people want to drop their drawers in the same room as someone of the opposite sex (except on certain situations), especially with such easily bypass-able cover. This goes for both men and women, and, again, there's no reason to make them.

Very few people want to drop their draws in the same room as someone of the SAME sex, either - and yet we (using your terminology) 'make them'.

I'm not sure where gender is even fitting into this, to be honest - are you saying you object to someone of the opposite sex taking a huge dump a few feet away from you... but you don't mind so long as it's someone of the same gender?

The point is people are MORE comfortable if it's the same gender. As much as I hate to agree with chess mistress her point is more than valid and you have not addressed it. An increase in sexual assault should be reason enough to disregard desegregating bathrooms.

[Grave_n_idle]

Very few people want to drop their draws in the same room as someone of the SAME sex, either - and yet we (using your terminology) 'make them'.

I'm not sure where gender is even fitting into this, to be honest - are you saying you object to someone of the opposite sex taking a huge dump a few feet away from you... but you don't mind so long as it's someone of the same gender?

The point is people are MORE comfortable if it's the same gender. As much as I hate to agree with chess mistress her point is more than valid and you have not addressed it. An increase in sexual assault should be reason enough to disregard desegregating bathrooms.

An increase in sexual assault is entirely speculative, ignores the fact that sexual assault can be 'same-sex' (so doesn't necessarily increase just because of the opposite sex), and ignores the fact that making facilities non-gendered does not mean men and women would be sharing the same room (they could be using separate, but non-specific rooms).

It also ignores the fact that historically, people have commonly used shared facilities, anyway - without it apparently becoming a rape magnet.

[Irona]

The point is people are MORE comfortable if it's the same gender. As much as I hate to agree with chess mistress her point is more than valid and you have not addressed it. An increase in sexual assault should be reason enough to disregard desegregating bathrooms.

An increase in sexual assault is entirely speculative, ignores the fact that sexual assault can be 'same-sex' (so doesn't necessarily increase just because of the opposite sex), and ignores the fact that making facilities non-gendered does not mean men and women would be sharing the same room (they could be using separate, but non-specific rooms).

It also ignores the fact that historically, people have commonly used shared facilities, anyway - without it apparently becoming a rape magnet.

Can you explain to me how having separate rooms for different sex's is different from segregation?

Women are very unlikely to be sexually assaulted by other women, and it doesn't help men who are in a situation of sexual assault to be moved into a uni-sex bathroom either. Perhaps the reason you think historically this didn't increase rapes is because of the social pressure on rape victims historically, they were under-reported alongside that historically women faced more sexual violence.

[USS Monitor]

Already thoroughly addressed and rebutted.

"Addressed" and "rebutted" without any proof, just only with suppositions.
I still think that for a real Feminist even a little, very narrow, chance, that something could increase sexual harassments and rapes should be enough.
Unisex bathrooms are the very opposite of women's safe spaces.
Also, ALL women-only spaces would cease to exist in consequence of the introduction of unisex bathrooms: in example you cannot ask for women-only wagons on a train while at the same time having around just only unisex bathrooms.

Why do you want segregated trains?

[Chessmistress]

Very few people want to drop their draws in the same room as someone of the SAME sex, either - and yet we (using your terminology) 'make them'.

I'm not sure where gender is even fitting into this, to be honest - are you saying you object to someone of the opposite sex taking a huge dump a few feet away from you... but you don't mind so long as it's someone of the same gender?

The point is people are MORE comfortable if it's the same gender. As much as I hate to agree with chess mistress her point is more than valid and you have not addressed it. An increase in sexual assault should be reason enough to disregard desegregating bathrooms.

Have you noticed that the most avid supporters of unisex bathrooms are almost always "feminist" males?
Have you noticed how easily they dimiss the issue of rapes and sexual harassments?
Have you noticed that they do not even consider the possibility that such increase could happen?

Have you noticed how they always totally avoid the close relation between segregated bathrooms and women's safe spaces?
How you noticed that it seems that they couldn't care less about the fact that the introduction of unisex bathrooms would mean people laugh at the request of women's safe spaces?
That last one is not a supposition: in example in Japan there are women-only wagons in the trains, because 33% women are sexually assaulted! With the introduction of unisex bathrooms such women-only wagons would cease to exist!

Some Radical Feminists argue that's because "feminist" males instinctively suppose "good and strong males" will protect women from assaults within unisex bathrooms.
That's incredibly patronising, and it shows that some males are well ready to sacrifice our security just only to satisfy their vanity.

Some other Radical Feminists even argue that's just a trojan horse meant to erase women's safe spaces.

Personally, I agree with that last idea.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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?

Well, if we follow IM's suggestion of getting rid of urinals, there's the hassle of taking all of those out and either capping the plumbing (and repairing any holes in the drywall/tile), or converting to toilets (which would require relocation of the p-traps from the wall to the floor, and building enclosures for privacy). There would also be the hassle of bathrooms being closed while construction is going on.

[Grave_n_idle]

Can you explain to me how having separate rooms for different sex's is different from segregation?

I didn't say there would be separate rooms for different sexes. If you have two rooms and one of them is labelled 'men' and one is labelled 'women', then you have limited who can pee where. If you take the signs off the doors, whoever needs to pee can pee in whichever room is vacant.

Women are very unlikely to be sexually assaulted by other women,

That's an interesting claim.

...and it doesn't help men who are in a situation of sexual assault to be moved into a uni-sex bathroom either.

It seems it would at worst be neutral, and at best, might help.

By Chess's logic, earlier in the thread - that would seem to make it worth doing.

Perhaps the reason you think historically this didn't increase rapes is because of the social pressure on rape victims historically, they were under-reported alongside that historically women faced more sexual violence.

No, I think it entirely likely that sexual assaults have been pretty much a constant throughout history - I just don't think toilets being gendered has likely made a significant difference.

To be honest, I think the reason why Roman or Mayan communal toilets don't seem to have been rape magnets is because the biggest asset to criminality is anonymity - and it's hard to be anonymous when there are a lot of people within a few feet of you, and you've all got your pants round your ankles.

[Grave_n_idle]

Have you noticed how they always totally avoid the close relation between segregated bathrooms and women's safe spaces?
How you noticed that it seems that they couldn't care less about the fact that the introduction of unisex bathrooms would mean people laugh at the request of women's safe spaces?
That last one is not a supposition: in example in Japan there are women-only wagons in the trains, because 33% women are sexually assaulted! With the introduction of unisex bathrooms such women-only wagons would cease to exist!

Ignoring it would mean there was evidence of a link. There's no reason to believe that there being unisex bathrooms means trains in Japan would lose women-only wagons.

[USS Monitor]

The point is people are MORE comfortable if it's the same gender. As much as I hate to agree with chess mistress her point is more than valid and you have not addressed it. An increase in sexual assault should be reason enough to disregard desegregating bathrooms.

Have you noticed that the most avid supporters of unisex bathrooms are almost always "feminist" males?

No.

Have you noticed how easily they dimiss the issue of rapes and sexual harassments?
Have you noticed that they do not even consider the possibility that such increase could happen?

Do existing unisex bathrooms have unusually high numbers of rapes or sexual assaults?

[USS Monitor]

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

Well, if we follow IM's suggestion of getting rid of urinals, there's the hassle of taking all of those out and either capping the plumbing (and repairing any holes in the drywall/tile), or converting to toilets (which would require relocation of the p-traps from the wall to the floor, and building enclosures for privacy). There would also be the hassle of bathrooms being closed while construction is going on.

So leave the urinals.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

It's a non-issue, are we seriously out of issues that this is a problem?
Fuck Unisex bathrooms, personally I find public segregated washrooms uncomfortable, Unisex even worse,

[Chessmistress]

...and it doesn't help men who are in a situation of sexual assault to be moved into a uni-sex bathroom either.

It seems it would at worst be neutral, and at best, might help.

By Chess's logic, earlier in the thread - that would seem to make it worth doing.

Indeed.
It might help males attacked by other males.
It would reduce their assaults.
Having the chance to choose, some rapists would prefer to rape women than other males.

Romans and Mayas had a very different idea of what is "rape" and there wasn't such thing as "sexual assault" - it was just a normal thing among them, or something.
Rapes and sexual assaults weren't even recorded.

[USS Monitor]

It seems it would at worst be neutral, and at best, might help.

By Chess's logic, earlier in the thread - that would seem to make it worth doing.

Indeed.
It might help males attacked by other males.
It would reduce their assaults.
Having the chance to choose, some rapists would prefer to rape women than other males.

Unless we're talking about prison rape in an all-male prison, they already have the chance to choose. If they're going in the men's room and assaulting other men, it's because they're into men.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed.
It might help males attacked by other males.
It would reduce their assaults.
Having the chance to choose, some rapists would prefer to rape women than other males.

You seem to be suggesting that rape is something where gender isn't less a preference, and the gender of the victim corresponds only to availability. I'm not sure how supportable that is.

You admit that unisex facilities might reduce rape of men by other men, but say that's not a good enough reason to have them... but the possibility that you claim some people MIGHT sexually assault more women apparently IS a good enough reason not to have them.

Surely, ALL rape matters? And not just the ones you guess might happen, with no historical reason to believe so?

[Chessmistress]

Indeed.
It might help males attacked by other males.
It would reduce their assaults.
Having the chance to choose, some rapists would prefer to rape women than other males.

Unless we're talking about prison rape in an all-male prison, they already have the chance to choose. If they're going in the men's room and assaulting other men, it's because they're into men.

Wrong.
Many male-on-male rapes are performed by "heterosexual" males.
Even supporters of unisex bathrooms highlighted that.
And it's not just only a matter of sexual preferences, since rape is not about sex but about dominance: it's even about the fact that women are on the average physically weaker than males, so a rapist would choose the easier target: us.

[Grave_n_idle]

Unless we're talking about prison rape in an all-male prison, they already have the chance to choose. If they're going in the men's room and assaulting other men, it's because they're into men.

Wrong.
Many male-on-male rapes are performed by "heterosexual" males.
Even supporters of unisex bathrooms highlighted that.
And it's not just only a matter of sexual preferences, since rape is not about sex but about dominance: it's even about the fact that women are on the average physically weaker than males, so a rapist would choose the easier target: us.

'Feminist' claims women are weak little flowers. I've long suspected yours was a parody account.

'Gay' sexual assaults by 'straight' people are not evidence that rapists just rape whatever is available - it's evidence that people mis-categorise their own self-identified gender orientation.

[Chessmistress]

Indeed.
It might help males attacked by other males.
It would reduce their assaults.
Having the chance to choose, some rapists would prefer to rape women than other males.

You seem to be suggesting that rape is something where gender isn't less a preference, and the gender of the victim corresponds only to availability. I'm not sure how supportable that is.

Hohoh , you should be pretty sure it's supportable, because even in this thread some people highlighted the fact that some "heterosexual" males perform male-on-male rape, and you never expressed against it.

You admit that unisex facilities might reduce rape of men by other men, but say that's not a good enough reason to have them... but the possibility that you claim some people MIGHT sexually assault more women apparently IS a good enough reason not to have them.

Surely, ALL rape matters? And not just the ones you guess might happen, with no historical reason to believe so?

It seems to me that you would be happy to reduce male-on-male rape through increasing male-on-women rape...

"Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights and women's empowerment on the grounds of equality to males".

Feminism is not about reducing male-on-male rape at the expense of women.
It'll never be.
That's why we don't want males within the movement.

[USS Monitor]

Unless we're talking about prison rape in an all-male prison, they already have the chance to choose. If they're going in the men's room and assaulting other men, it's because they're into men.

Wrong.
Many male-on-male rapes are performed by "heterosexual" males.
Even supporters of unisex bathrooms highlighted that.
And it's not just only a matter of sexual preferences, since rape is not about sex but about dominance: it's even about the fact that women are on the average physically weaker than males, so a rapist would choose the easier target: us.

So can a 14 year old boy go in the "safe" bathroom since he's physically weaker than a full-grown man?

[USS Monitor]

You admit that unisex facilities might reduce rape of men by other men, but say that's not a good enough reason to have them... but the possibility that you claim some people MIGHT sexually assault more women apparently IS a good enough reason not to have them.

Surely, ALL rape matters? And not just the ones you guess might happen, with no historical reason to believe so?

It seems to me that you would be happy to reduce male-on-male rape through increasing male-on-women rape...

"Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights and women's empowerment on the grounds of equality to males".

Feminism is not about reducing male-on-male rape at the expense of women.
It'll never be.
That's why we don't want males within the movement.

You're not royalty and you shouldn't use the royal "we" when talking about yourself.