Advertisement
by Billugslovakc » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:06 pm
by Greater Soviet Ukraine » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:08 pm
Webus wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:It is commonly taught that modern Western societies are no longer segregated. However, this is a lie. Society might no longer be racially segregated, but bathrooms remain segregated. Males can only use one of two sets of bathrooms in a building/floor, and females can only use the other of the two sets.
Is this a problem?
I think it is. Segregated bathrooms must end.
Segregated bathrooms will continue to promote divisions in society between the genders and the sexes; they are also unacceptably callous towards people who might not identify comfortably with either of the two genders/sexes or who may look different from the side they would rather identify with. It is a pointless exercise in social division. What is the point in keeping bathrooms separate? It does nothing but reinforce labels.
There is another problem. It is unfair for the females. Females generally wait longer than males to use the facilities; this is discrimination. I can speak from personal experience. Having traveled to many parts of the planet it always seems the case that the line-up for the female side is much longer. Why is this? Well its because of the design. Facilities are separate but NOT equal. Male facilities have exclusive access to urinals and so the line up is shorter. The true solution to equality is to have one bathroom for all genders and to remove the urinals (females can't use them anyway and they provide an unfair advantage to a set of the population in wait time). This way, EVERYONE gets an average wait time for relief that is approximately equal and that isn't affected by the availability of equipment. You can still maintain two washrooms per building but EVERYONE should be allowed to use either one and they should both be completely stocked with bowls.
Bathrooms should be unified. What are people scared of?
So here is the discussion question.
1. Are segregated bathrooms a problem?
2. What should/can be done to reform current facilities to promote equality?
I think Gender Neutral Bathrooms are preferable, but this not a huge problem like you make it out to be.
by Greater Soviet Ukraine » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:08 pm
Billugslovakc wrote:I present to you ladies and gentlemen, the feminists of Tumblr. Seriously, this is such a minute issue that its not even worth debating, having separated bathrooms in terms of sex doesn't oppress anyone of the opposite gender, so let us crap in peace!
by Chessmistress » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:12 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Chessmistress wrote:
Wrong.
Even if English is not my native language is your reading comprehension that fails.
It's 4/5 of sexual assaults BUT 47% of rapes
https://rainn.org/statistics
So, it's EXACTLY
You may better off without negating evidence.
Even if 80% sexual assaulters are non-strangers, women are MORE likely to be raped by unknown persons: 53%.
You seems don't care about the likeliness (53%) that women could be raped by unknown males within public bathrooms:
You're drawing an artificial distinction, as you'd know if you followed the link and clicked through.
Let me show you: https://rainn.org/get-information/stati ... -offenders"Approximately 4/5 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.
82% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.
47% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.
25% are an intimate.
5% are a relative."
I think where you were going wrong was assuming that they weren't talking about the SAME rapes/sexual assaults in both cases - you were confused by the wording, perhaps. I prefer to believe that than that you were just arguing semantics.
Approximately 4/5 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim.
47% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.
Approximately 4/5 of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim.
47% of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim.
9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003
by The imperial canadian dutchy » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:14 pm
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:15 pm
Stellonia wrote:How is the term "sexual assault" defined by the source?
by Chessmistress » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:16 pm
Billugslovakc wrote:I present to you ladies and gentlemen, the feminists of Tumblr. Seriously, this is such a minute issue that its not even worth debating, having separated bathrooms in terms of sex doesn't oppress anyone of the opposite gender, so let us crap in peace!
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:18 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Since "assaults" is "sexual assaults" and it's a different thing than "rape" the meaning for me is:.
by Chessmistress » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:18 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Stellonia wrote:How is the term "sexual assault" defined by the source?
Assuming you're asking me (hit the 'quote' button, it makes it a lot easier) - they are using it interchangeably with 'rape'.
In other words, they describe rape both as rape, and as a sexual assault. Which is perfectly reasonable.
by The Empire of Masyaf » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:19 pm
Billugslovakc wrote:I present to you ladies and gentlemen, the feminists of Tumblr. Seriously, this is such a minute issue that its not even worth debating, having separated bathrooms in terms of sex doesn't oppress anyone of the opposite gender, so let us crap in peace!
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:23 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:
Assuming you're asking me (hit the 'quote' button, it makes it a lot easier) - they are using it interchangeably with 'rape'.
In other words, they describe rape both as rape, and as a sexual assault. Which is perfectly reasonable.
It's perfectly reasonable, I agree, but it's not commonly nor legally used.
by Ceannairceach » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:25 pm
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:28 pm
Ceannairceach wrote:I don't feel particularly impassioned either way. Gender integrated bathrooms would be alright with me if it became the new norm, but I doubt it is something that will happen within the next couple decades.
by Nirvash Type TheEND » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:30 pm
by Chessmistress » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:32 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Ceannairceach wrote:I don't feel particularly impassioned either way. Gender integrated bathrooms would be alright with me if it became the new norm, but I doubt it is something that will happen within the next couple decades.
Same here. I'm not clamouring for combined bathrooms (although I've seen them, and they seem to work just fine). I just think most of the arguments against them are ludicrous.
I don't really think there's a Zeitgeist to change them, though.
by Chessmistress » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:37 pm
Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:It all just needs to be a big funnel in the middle of the floor that everyone pees into. Yes even the ladies.
by Dyakovo » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:37 pm
Billugslovakc wrote:I present to you ladies and gentlemen, the feminists of Tumblr. Seriously, this is such a minute issue that its not even worth debating, having separated bathrooms in terms of sex doesn't oppress anyone of the opposite gender, so let us crap in peace!
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:37 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Fact is that at least there are arguments against unisex bathrooms.
Chessmistress wrote:On the opposite side the only argument in favor is actually "it may reduce the othering"
by Nirvash Type TheEND » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:39 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:It all just needs to be a big funnel in the middle of the floor that everyone pees into. Yes even the ladies.
It's the most hygienical kind of bathroom, and also the most economical and most easy to clean.
But the hole is not so big, and it's a little uncomfortable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_toilet
by Dyakovo » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:39 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Billugslovakc wrote:I present to you ladies and gentlemen, the feminists of Tumblr. Seriously, this is such a minute issue that its not even worth debating, having separated bathrooms in terms of sex doesn't oppress anyone of the opposite gender, so let us crap in peace!
Funny thing is that I have been accused to be a Tumblr kind and I substantially agree with you...while "moderate" people are freaking out in order to ban separated bathrooms.
by Dyakovo » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:41 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:
Same here. I'm not clamouring for combined bathrooms (although I've seen them, and they seem to work just fine). I just think most of the arguments against them are ludicrous.
I don't really think there's a Zeitgeist to change them, though.
Fact is that at least there are arguments against unisex bathrooms.
On the opposite side the only argument in favor is actually "it may reduce the othering"
by Italios » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:42 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:It all just needs to be a big funnel in the middle of the floor that everyone pees into. Yes even the ladies.
It's the most hygienical kind of bathroom, and also the most economical and most easy to clean.
But the hole is not so big, and it's a little uncomfortable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_toilet
by Ethel mermania » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:45 pm
Italios wrote:Chessmistress wrote:
It's the most hygienical kind of bathroom, and also the most economical and most easy to clean.
But the hole is not so big, and it's a little uncomfortable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_toilet
Unfortunately, they're the hardest to wee in, and you'd better hope you don't fall in.
by Italios » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:51 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Decapoleis, Europa Undivided, Keville23, Perishna, Tungstan
Advertisement