Segregated Bathrooms: A Problem?

[Chessmistress]

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.

Feminists admit that women are - on the average - physically weaker than males, and since rapists are seeking for dominance they would choose the physically weaker target. Most times is the woman, sometimes it can be the male.
'Gay' sexual assaults by 'straight' people is not evidence that ALL rapists just rape whatever is available: is evidence that SOME rapists just rape whatever is available.

Rapists seek for dominance, not for sex, that's why sexual preferences are still quite important but not an absolute.

[Italios]

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.

Ever heard of He-For-She?

And is it just me, or do other people have a problem with you saying "we"? I'm sure plenty of other feminists think that it's okay for men to be feminists and want them to actually support women's rights. You can't speak for everyone assuming that's they'll all agree with what you say.

[Grave_n_idle]

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,

The fact that some people in a thread on this forum said a thing does not constitute good evidence.

...and you never expressed against it.

It's almost like I don't respond to every single post, and - in fact - am sometimes absent from the forums from days at a time.

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

That's not even a logical assumption to make from the available evidence.

"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.

Nice windmill you're tilting at.

That's why we don't want males within the movement.

You don't own feminism. To be honest, I'm a far better fit than you.

[Chessmistress]

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?

Indeed, on the average, a 14 yo boy is more at risk than a 24 yo guy, just because very often the 14 yo boy is physically weaker than a 24 yo guy: a rapist would target a 14 yo boy rather than an average adult male, maybe even muscular.
You have just to apply the very same reasoning to us: the fact that we are - on the average - physically weaker than males is just a fact.

[Grave_n_idle]

Feminists admit that women are - on the average - physically weaker than males, and since rapists are seeking for dominance they would choose the physically weaker target. Most times is the woman, sometimes it can be the male.

That's twice you've made the same claim, but a claim is not evidence.

'Gay' sexual assaults by 'straight' people is not evidence that ALL rapists just rape whatever is available: is evidence that SOME rapists just rape whatever is available.

No, it isn't. That's just a claim you've made - that fact doesn't even support it.

Rapists seek for dominance, not for sex, that's why sexual preferences are still quite important but not an absolute.

If rapists just seek dominance, then gender is not important. Rapists DO seek to do an act of violence to someone... but they tend to be specific about WHO they do it to. Indeed, statistically they don't just have a preference of gender or even type - statistically, they even have a very specific victim in mind.

[Celseon]

Provided the needs of transpeople are met in the process I do not object to retaining sex-segregated facilities.

Ever heard of He-For-She?

Obviously not real feminism. Feminism is just for us women and girls. You icky boys keep your hands off of it.

And is it just me, or do other people have a problem with you saying "we"? I'm sure plenty of other feminists think that it's okay for men to be feminists and want them to actually support women's rights. You can't speak for everyone assuming that's they'll all agree with what you say.

CM's brand of feminism, if it is indeed feminism at all, does not now and I hope with all my might will not ever represent me. It is vital to feminism's success that men be part of the movement, and more than this that men's concerns be reflected in feminist advocacy.

[USS Monitor]

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

Indeed, on the average, a 14 yo boy is more at risk than a 24 yo guy, just because very often the 14 yo boy is physically weaker than a 24 yo guy: a rapist would target a 14 yo boy rather than an average adult male, maybe even muscular.
You have just to apply the very same reasoning to us: the fact that we are - on the average - physically weaker than males is just a fact.

That's not what I asked.

[Chessmistress]

You don't own feminism. To be honest, I'm a far better fit than you.

It depends what means "Feminism" for you.
I don't think Feminism is about reducing male-on-male rape at the expense of women: unisex bathrooms would not just only means that some rapists would target women instead of males, but also unisex bathrooms are a threat to the very idea of women's safe spaces.
People would laugh at the request of women's safe spaces if all bathrooms would be unisex.

[CoraSpia]

The real thing we need to do is introduce segregated disabled bathrooms. Because are the advantages that people claim segregated bathrooms offer too high a level for disabled people?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I don't see a problem with a block of restrooms that have no designation, so long as there are other options available for those who have serious issues, and so long as there is some sort of monitoring going on that doesn't cross the line into creepy or invasive - and only where appropriate or applicable. There's already tiny places with one room, one toilet as is after all.

High class restrooms have been shown as having an attendant. With the job issues out there, for large event areas, heavy traffic areas for the public and the like where such a need for more bathrooms is needed, why not? You provide reasonable safety, thus negating some of the fears. You provide a genderless environment, thus eliminating some of the problems on that equation. You provide more jobs which ought to help plenty of people, in addition to the other benefits. And if you continue to use some of the facilities that are already divided by gender, that seems to sort out the rest of it more or less.

None of this is rocket science. If new buildings were planned along these lines, it'd be no problem. Existing structures would simply have to be looked at individually, and those able to make changes, could. Those not, c'est la vie, one does what one can.

One more example of people getting their panties in a twist over things that could be sorted with a bit of sense and compromise.

[CoraSpia]

I don't see a problem with a block of restrooms that have no designation, so long as there are other options available for those who have serious issues, and so long as there is some sort of monitoring going on that doesn't cross the line into creepy or invasive - and only where appropriate or applicable. There's already tiny places with one room, one toilet as is after all.

High class restrooms have been shown as having an attendant. With the job issues out there, for large event areas, heavy traffic areas for the public and the like where such a need for more bathrooms is needed, why not? You provide reasonable safety, thus negating some of the fears. You provide a genderless environment, thus eliminating some of the problems on that equation. You provide more jobs which ought to help plenty of people, in addition to the other benefits. And if you continue to use some of the facilities that are already divided by gender, that seems to sort out the rest of it more or less.

None of this is rocket science. If new buildings were planned along these lines, it'd be no problem. Existing structures would simply have to be looked at individually, and those able to make changes, could. Those not, c'est la vie, one does what one can.

One more example of people getting their panties in a twist over things that could be sorted with a bit of sense and compromise.

We should have sexless bathrooms with CCTV cameras in every stall. I'm sure that would create jobs for a particular sort of person.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Corn and straw come from totally different species of plants.

Ah, you're troller. Got it.

Trollnaming is unnecessary, besides Ebola doesn't troll it kills.

[Chessmistress]

Feminists admit that women are - on the average - physically weaker than males, and since rapists are seeking for dominance they would choose the physically weaker target. Most times is the woman, sometimes it can be the male.

That's twice you've made the same claim, but a claim is not evidence.

I don't need to "prove" that women are - on the average - physically weaker than males.
You can say it's not true, and I just let you claim that women are not - on the average - physically weaker than males, and I laugh about your claim

Rapists seek for dominance, not for sex, that's why sexual preferences are still quite important but not an absolute.

If rapists just seek dominance, then gender is not important. Rapists DO seek to do an act of violence to someone... but they tend to be specific about WHO they do it to. Indeed, statistically they don't just have a preference of gender or even type - statistically, they even have a very specific victim in mind.

And STATISTICALLY they seek for weaker/more vulnerable targets...
And a target should be also available, otherwise if a target is unavaliable, the rapist cannot rape her...

[Grave_n_idle]

It depends what means "Feminism" for you.

Probably, somewhere between the OED definition of the historical movement ("The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.") and the Merriam Webster definition if the feminist movement as a whole ("the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes").

I don't think Feminism is about reducing male-on-male rape at the expense of women:

Neither do I. That's a windmill you keep tilting at.

...unisex bathrooms would not just only means that some rapists would target women instead of males,

An unlikely claim you keep making, but with no evidence, or even logical reason to believe it's true.

...but also unisex bathrooms are a threat to the very idea of women's safe spaces.

Another of your windmills, for tilting.

People would laugh at the request of women's safe spaces if all bathrooms would be unisex.

It's an odd claim. I think maybe you're over-exaggerating the importance of toilets.

[CoraSpia]

It depends what means "Feminism" for you.

Probably, somewhere between the OED definition of the historical movement ("The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.") and the Merriam Webster definition if the feminist movement as a whole ("the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes").

I don't think Feminism is about reducing male-on-male rape at the expense of women:

Neither do I. That's a windmill you keep tilting at.

...unisex bathrooms would not just only means that some rapists would target women instead of males,

An unlikely claim you keep making, but with no evidence, or even logical reason to believe it's true.

...but also unisex bathrooms are a threat to the very idea of women's safe spaces.

Another of your windmills, for tilting.

People would laugh at the request of women's safe spaces if all bathrooms would be unisex.

It's an odd claim. I think maybe you're over-exaggerating the importance of toilets.

The belief that their needs to be 'womens safe spaces' is ludicrous. Instead of more segregation, why don't we instead focus on better response to rape from the police (where victims and perpetrators are men or women), and get rid of the culture that rape is a part of society we need to be changing the rest of society to address?

[USS Monitor]

I don't see a problem with a block of restrooms that have no designation, so long as there are other options available for those who have serious issues, and so long as there is some sort of monitoring going on that doesn't cross the line into creepy or invasive - and only where appropriate or applicable. There's already tiny places with one room, one toilet as is after all.

High class restrooms have been shown as having an attendant. With the job issues out there, for large event areas, heavy traffic areas for the public and the like where such a need for more bathrooms is needed, why not? You provide reasonable safety, thus negating some of the fears. You provide a genderless environment, thus eliminating some of the problems on that equation. You provide more jobs which ought to help plenty of people, in addition to the other benefits. And if you continue to use some of the facilities that are already divided by gender, that seems to sort out the rest of it more or less.

None of this is rocket science. If new buildings were planned along these lines, it'd be no problem. Existing structures would simply have to be looked at individually, and those able to make changes, could. Those not, c'est la vie, one does what one can.

One more example of people getting their panties in a twist over things that could be sorted with a bit of sense and compromise.

We should have sexless bathrooms with CCTV cameras in every stall. I'm sure that would create jobs for a particular sort of person.

Let's not and say we did.

[Chessmistress]

I don't see a problem with a block of restrooms that have no designation, so long as there are other options available for those who have serious issues, and so long as there is some sort of monitoring going on that doesn't cross the line into creepy or invasive - and only where appropriate or applicable. There's already tiny places with one room, one toilet as is after all.

I agree with that.
If there would be bathrooms for women, for males and ALSO unisex bathrooms, that would be great.
There's even another solution for universal unisex bathrooms, but it's very difficult to apply in public places: single-occupancy lockable little bathrooms. If a bathroom can hold just only one person and it can be locked, well, such bathroom can be used regardless of sex.
That's EXACTLY the kind of bathroom most people have in their homes, and that's the main reason why within private houses there aren't segregated bathrooms.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't need to "prove" that women are - on the average - physically weaker than males.

No, you need to prove that "since rapists are seeking for dominance they would choose the physically weaker target" - since it's apparently the hinge you believe your whole unisex-bathrooms-means-more-women-raped argument relies on.

And STATISTICALLY they seek for weaker/more vulnerable targets...

"Approximately 4/5 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. 47% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance."

https://rainn.org/statistics

Nope. The weakness or vulnerability of the target seems to be pretty much irrelevant. The relationship and the specific target seems to be the overarching factor in deciding victims.

And a target should be also available, otherwise if a target is unavaliable, the rapist cannot rape her...

And you believe that toilets are the significant factor, here?

[USS Monitor]

Probably, somewhere between the OED definition of the historical movement ("The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.") and the Merriam Webster definition if the feminist movement as a whole ("the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes").



Neither do I. That's a windmill you keep tilting at.



An unlikely claim you keep making, but with no evidence, or even logical reason to believe it's true.



Another of your windmills, for tilting.



It's an odd claim. I think maybe you're over-exaggerating the importance of toilets.

The belief that their needs to be 'womens safe spaces' is ludicrous. Instead of more segregation, why don't we instead focus on better response to rape from the police (where victims and perpetrators are men or women), and get rid of the culture that rape is a part of society we need to be changing the rest of society to address?

I think women's safe spaces are useful in a few limited contexts, such as rape crisis centers where a woman who was recently raped might be more comfortable seeking help from other women, as opposed to men. If men need their own space for similar reasons, it is totally fine to have a men's safe space.

But that's not what a public bathroom or a commuter train is for.

[Grave_n_idle]

The belief that their needs to be 'womens safe spaces' is ludicrous.

Frankly, I'm all in favour of women's safe spaces. And men's safe spaces. And kid's safe spaces. And... etc.

Safe spaces are a good think for at-risk and vulnerable people. We should have more - many more - not less.

[CoraSpia]

The belief that their needs to be 'womens safe spaces' is ludicrous. Instead of more segregation, why don't we instead focus on better response to rape from the police (where victims and perpetrators are men or women), and get rid of the culture that rape is a part of society we need to be changing the rest of society to address?

I think women's safe spaces are useful in a few limited contexts, such as rape crisis centers where a woman who was recently raped might be more comfortable seeking help from other women, as opposed to men. If men need their own space for similar reasons, it is totally fine to have a men's safe space.

But that's not what a public bathroom or a commuter train is for.

No I disagree, like we won't allow a white-only safe space or a black-only safe space. Considering that I've been treated as vulnerable and in need of protection before (because of blindness), it gets very, very tiring to see it around the world so much. If you want to stop violence, maybe stop emphasising difference so much.

[USS Monitor]

I don't see a problem with a block of restrooms that have no designation, so long as there are other options available for those who have serious issues, and so long as there is some sort of monitoring going on that doesn't cross the line into creepy or invasive - and only where appropriate or applicable. There's already tiny places with one room, one toilet as is after all.

I agree with that.
If there would be bathrooms for women, for males and ALSO unisex bathrooms, that would be great.
There's even another solution for universal unisex bathrooms, but it's very difficult to apply in public places: single-occupancy lockable little bathrooms. If a bathroom can hold just only one person and it can be locked, well, such bathroom can be used regardless of sex.
That's EXACTLY the kind of bathroom most people have in their homes, and that's the main reason why within private houses there aren't segregated bathrooms.

You know stalls have locks on the doors, right?

[CoraSpia]

The belief that their needs to be 'womens safe spaces' is ludicrous.

Frankly, I'm all in favour of women's safe spaces. And men's safe spaces. And kid's safe spaces. And... etc.

Safe spaces are a good think for at-risk and vulnerable people. We should have more - many more - not less.

Speaking as someone who has been considered a 'vulnerable' person by society for far too long for me to like, I hate the idea of 'safe spaces.'

Because you know what happens when you treat problems with cotton wool and protection? Those vulnerable people you want to help, they've just become that little bit more vulnerable.

[Chessmistress]

"Approximately 4/5 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. 47% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance."

https://rainn.org/statistics

"47% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance" sounds to me "53% rapists are unknown person, you're 12,6759% more likely to be raped by an unknown person than by a friend or acquaintance".
It's still enough to be afraid by unknown persons within a public bathroom...

Nope. The weakness or vulnerability of the target seems to be pretty much irrelevant. The relationship and the specific target seems to be the overarching factor in deciding victims.

Wrong, in 53% cases of rape there's no previous relationship between the rapist and the victim.

[Conscentia]

I don't see a problem with a block of restrooms that have no designation, so long as there are other options available for those who have serious issues, and so long as there is some sort of monitoring going on that doesn't cross the line into creepy or invasive - and only where appropriate or applicable. There's already tiny places with one room, one toilet as is after all.

I agree with that.
If there would be bathrooms for women, for males and ALSO unisex bathrooms, that would be great.
There's even another solution for universal unisex bathrooms, but it's very difficult to apply in public places: single-occupancy lockable little bathrooms. If a bathroom can hold just only one person and it can be locked, well, such bathroom can be used regardless of sex.
That's EXACTLY the kind of bathroom most people have in their homes, and that's the main reason why within private houses there aren't segregated bathrooms.

... No it isn't. Most home bathrooms don't even have locks on the doors.