Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Azrael » Tue May 12, 2015 4:44 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Azrael wrote:
Angua wrote:The newer parts of my university and hospital basically have a corridor with individual unisex toilets.
I think it's a great idea. But it's also expensive, both in the floor plan and build out costs.
How is that more expensive than individual single sex toilets?


Typical multi-occupancy, single sex bathroom with communal sink facilities (not shown). These are the default, and is reflective of what's found in most every building in the US:

Image

Creating that same thing with non-common sinks and real walls and doors so that it opens onto a public hallway consumes more floor plan space. Even more if the scale of the building/facility bank is such that it eliminates space saving urinals. It is also more expensive to build. Especially when you get into the finer details -- each room needs it's own ventilation, it's own electrical circuit/switch/GFCI. Plus smaller spaces require more dense lighting. And, as mentioned earlier, it would use more water.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 12, 2015 4:50 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
elasto wrote:...and the right on the grounds of bureaucratic red-tape needlessly costing businesses money?

Again, I doubt there is as much money savings as you'd think. You still need the same number of toilets per person, they're just arranged differently. Heck, in the US it would undoubtedly cost more for the type of layout you suggest. The standard metal dividers used here are super cheap. Individual rooms are expensive.

Plus, there's already an easy way to accommodate non-binary genders in the large-scale bathroom segment -- just include a single-occupancy unisex. It's both right for being right, but also right for being entirely pragmatic.

Changing people's minds is an odd Catch-22 where you need to do it in practice, which means removing regulatory hurdles, which you may not be able to do until you change minds. There are easy ways to make it better (perhaps not perfect) with minimal effort.


These are becoming more common now in my area. Usually described as a "family" bathroom. Which sounds a little awkward, but it means they put the changing table in there, rather than the mass bathrooms, where they'd probably block traffic anyway. Seems like one reasonable solution, on multiple grounds. Not caring overmuch about genders of people using the bathroom is certainly another.

Killing archaic laws, or at least, neglecting their enforcement would be a start.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Ixtellor » Tue May 12, 2015 8:58 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:The benefits of unisex bathrooms are:
(1) eliminates the stigma around genderqueer persons


What about the stigma of having a small penis? % of male society that doesn't want women to see their body parts + % of female society that don't want to be in a bathroom around men Versus % of genderqueer people that want to use whatever bathroom.
At what point can Majority Rule be incorporated? There is always going to be a minority that feels oppressed (Cannibals, Nazis) but at some point can Majority rule trump the feelings of the tiny minority?
A majority of people prefer separate bathrooms. Maybe they are wrong and unisex is a morally superior system --- but if the vast vast majority of society wants X -- and it isn't a violation of the Constitution (Equal protection) is it ok if X exists?

Also, how big of a problem is that? If you appear to be a female and use a female restroom -- I doubt its ever actually an issue (Middle schools being an exception I imagine)

(2) eliminates the stigma around chaperoned persons having to use the "wrong" bathroom

Thats not an issue. People see opposite sex little kids in bathrooms all the time.

(3) cuts down on wait time by removing bottlenecking

Not peeing around Girls > longer wait.

(4) cuts down on cleaning time (since many places require the man to clean the men's room, and vice versa, or wait until the bathroom is empty)


I wager its statistically insignificant.

(5) allows men or women access to whatever vending is in the opposite bathroom


Women not going #2 in front of Men > Your right to have the restroom be a Convenience store

(6) gives both genders access to changing tables if needed


Not really an issue.

What are the benefits of segragated bathrooms? Lack of peeping ain't one of them, since it happens in them anyway, nor is privacy, as the irksome presence of people talking to you at a urinal, or hearing you crap, or glimpsing you through the stall door crack, etc., is already a well-known facet of segregated bathrooms.


For whatever non-rational reason --- a majority of people are ok with that. For whatever non-rational reason, men are less concerned with other men seeing their private parts than strange women. It seems to be a preference for most people.
And again, my basic question, is why should the preference of a small minority outweigh the preference of a huge majority on an issue that isn't a violation of civil liberty and frequently not even an issue. I assume I have used the bathroom with a transgendered individual and never realized it.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Quercus » Tue May 12, 2015 10:19 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:There is always going to be a minority that feels oppressed (Cannibals, Nazis)

Seriously? Your direct analogy to genderqueer people being uncomfortable with segregated bathrooms is cannibals and Nazis? Comparing a morally neutral group to criminals and fascists is fallacious, insulting and frankly childish. Cut it out.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue May 12, 2015 11:58 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:What about the stigma of having a small penis? % of male society that doesn't want women to see their body parts + % of female society that don't want to be in a bathroom around men Versus % of genderqueer people that want to use whatever bathroom.


Well, you're arguing for reinforcing that stigma, which is certainly a difference.

I mean, urinals shouldn't be designed to make accidentally seeing someone's penis an issue. Good urinals have privacy screens and idiots design urinals that do not. But as far as I'm concerned, the discrimination angle is a secondary one and the cost and efficiency discussion is really a bit silly, because any minor disadvantage of one system or the other can easily be ameliorated by a slight procedural adjustment - the costs are really going to come out to be the same no matter what you do.

No, I just think it's socially a good thing to not segregate. Concerns during the initial adjustment are minor, largely rather childish, and temporary.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Forest Goose
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 9:27 am UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Forest Goose » Wed May 13, 2015 12:32 am UTC

Ixtellor wrote:What about the stigma of having a small penis? % of male society that doesn't want women to see their body parts + % of female society that don't want to be in a bathroom around men Versus % of genderqueer people that want to use whatever bathroom.


If people are seeing your body parts, they're either doing something wrong or you are.

Thats not an issue. People see opposite sex little kids in bathrooms all the time.


So why aren't the kids upset for the same reason the adults are? And if they are, why don't you mention it. Either way, it seems at odds with the rest of what you're saying.

Not peeing around Girls > longer wait.


I feel like if someone is so painfully shy that they can't even make do with a stall, that they aren't going to be using public bathrooms to begin with, no matter how they are setup. But, more importantly, is there any reason to believe this is true? Has this held true in places with unisex bathrooms?

Women not going #2 in front of Men


Do they have the door open? Why are men shy about peeing and women about shitting, by the way? Just curious

men are less concerned with other men seeing their private parts than strange women. It seems to be a preference for most people.


How do you know this? Maybe some men are okay with women seeing them, not so okay with men, but have no choice with the current arrangement. Maybe most people don't care, but, the current arrangement doesn't refelct that. Etc.

I can, personally, say that I don't really care, but I've never noticed people staring at my dick to my normal public restroom experience either.
Forest Goose: A rare, but wily, form of goose; best known for dropping on unsuspecting hikers, from trees, to steal sweets.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby morriswalters » Wed May 13, 2015 1:01 am UTC

Forest Goose wrote:If people are seeing your body parts, they're either doing something wrong or you are.
You've been sheltered too much. Not every urinal has a partition. And not everybody hugs the urinal. And guys look.
Forest Goose wrote:I feel like if someone is so painfully shy that they can't even make do with a stall, that they aren't going to be using public bathrooms to begin with, no matter how they are setup. But, more importantly, is there any reason to believe this is true?
Yes. It called bladder lock. And it is fairly common. And not going to a public restroom sometimes isn't an option.
Forest Goose wrote:So why aren't the kids upset for the same reason the adults are?
They haven't been programmed yet. When they grow up and realize that their are people of another gender and get bullied in the locker room a couple of times, they'll adapt.
Copper Bezel wrote:Concerns during the initial adjustment are minor, largely rather childish, and temporary.
Peoples concerns are never childish, any more than a trans persons are. The fact that people can be insecure and threatened by things that don't meet their expectations shouldn't really be a surprise to you. If guys are scared to death of females to the point that they can't talk(something I'm sure is common among all genders), imagine having to share an intimate moment, with strangers, much less a person of another gender. It takes time to learn new behaviors.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby elasto » Wed May 13, 2015 1:53 am UTC

A majority of people prefer separate bathrooms. Maybe they are wrong and unisex is a morally superior system --- but if the vast vast majority of society wants X -- and it isn't a violation of the Constitution (Equal protection) is it ok if X exists?

That doesn't explain the laws forbidding businesses building unisex bathrooms...

Sometimes though, society simply doesn't know what it wants. Societies fear openly gay people serving in the military, oppose it bitterly, and then when it happens it's no big deal, everyone grows up, and actually everyone is all the better for it.

It's exactly the same thing with gay marriage, gay adoption and all the rest of it. People think the sky will fall but customs and attitudes very quickly adapt.

(Not that unisex bathrooms is even 1% as important as those issues of course; It's just a comparison. If people can adapt to those things more or less overnight, unisex bathrooms is a synch though.)
Last edited by elasto on Wed May 13, 2015 1:56 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Forest Goose
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 9:27 am UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Forest Goose » Wed May 13, 2015 1:55 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:You've been sheltered too much. Not every urinal has a partition. And not everybody hugs the urinal. And guys look.


I haven't been sheltered, anything but; I can say that I have never noticed anyone peeking over the urinal at me.

As for not hugging the urinal; if you're concerned that people are looking, then why would you be being more open about it?

So, you're telling me that most guys are quite comfortable with guys watching them pee, but women will lock the whole process up?

Yes. It called bladder lock. And it is fairly common. And not going to a public restroom sometimes isn't an option.


How do you know that it is common? Where are people peeing around strange women at on a regular basis? Or is this something that happens irrespective of who is watching?

They haven't been programmed yet. When they grow up and realize that their are people of another gender and get bullied in the locker room a couple of times, they'll adapt.


So, if kids aren't naturally programmed, isn't this a good argument for making the change?

Also, I'm not following your second part, how does this program them to not be able to handle unisex bathrooms? And if this programming is so universal, why are so many people seemingly okay with it? (Both cases: unisex bathrooms and the programming)
Forest Goose: A rare, but wily, form of goose; best known for dropping on unsuspecting hikers, from trees, to steal sweets.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed May 13, 2015 2:25 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:You've been sheltered too much. Not every urinal has a partition. And not everybody hugs the urinal. And guys look.

I think we're all aware of the existence of urinals without partitions. We've had them posted in the thread earlier on. They're awful. I particularly dislike the "waterfall" style that's meant to seem conspicuously classy, but still involves pissing in a communal trough. If we're allying those with one side of the argument or the other here, I'll gladly fight with whomever on the point. There is no reason for those to exist.

morriswalters wrote:Peoples concerns are never childish, any more than a trans persons are.

We are discussing a conflict of incompatible interests. If we can't discuss the validity of those interests, then we don't need any reasoning and argument at all. Majority rule says segregated bathrooms win and we shouldn't have bothered talking about it.

I think it's socially useful to acknowledge the concerns of trans and non-binary people in this instance. I do not think it's socially useful to meet the demands of this gender-oriented "privacy" concern. I think that reinforcing the latter is a regressive notion and reinforcing the former is a progressive notion.

morriswalters wrote:The fact that people can be insecure and threatened by things that don't meet their expectations shouldn't really be a surprise to you. If guys are scared to death of females to the point that they can't talk(something I'm sure is common among all genders), imagine having to share an intimate moment, with strangers, much less a person of another gender. It takes time to learn new behaviors.

And my argument is that it is beneficial in this instance to learn them. In fact, I think the conventions that make it possible for someone to make contact with the opposite sex optional, to never get over those debilitating anxieties, are not without a hand in creating the present situation. Being unable to speak with members of the opposite sex is not a trivial personality quirk. It's a problem we should be attentive to and should be treating, not something we should mask and ignore.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed May 13, 2015 2:30 am UTC

Ixtellor wrote:What about the stigma of having a small penis? % of male society that doesn't want women to see their body parts + % of female society that don't want to be in a bathroom around men Versus % of genderqueer people that want to use whatever bathroom.

Using your terminology, "icky feelings" << "actual harassment".

Also, how big of a problem is that? If you appear to be a female and use a female restroom -- I doubt its ever actually an issue (Middle schools being an exception I imagine)

Then you are hideously ignorant of reality.

Thats not an issue. People see opposite sex little kids in bathrooms all the time.

And the kids get harassment from other kids for it, etc. Also, not just kids were being mentioned.

Not peeing around Girls > longer wait.

You have not justified, in any way, that this is a reasonable complaint. You are pretty directly begging the question.

I wager its statistically insignificant.

You're not even making an argument here.

Women not going #2 in front of Men > Your right to have the restroom be a Convenience store

Again, begging the question.

Not really an issue.

Neglecting to make any kind of argument.

For whatever non-rational reason --- a majority of people are ok with that.

You have comprehensively failed to demonstrate that.

For whatever non-rational reason, men are less concerned with other men seeing their private parts than strange women.

You have comprehensively failed to demonstrate that.

And again, my basic question, is why should the preference of a small minority outweigh the preference of a huge majority on an issue that isn't a violation of civil liberty and frequently not even an issue. I assume I have used the bathroom with a transgendered individual and never realized it.

The claim that it is not a violation of civil liberty is already a ridiculous assumption not supported by the evidence.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby morriswalters » Wed May 13, 2015 9:38 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:I think we're all aware of the existence of urinals without partitions. We've had them posted in the thread earlier on. They're awful.
They aren't awful. The thing that makes them awful to you are the modesty codes that society has developed around them. Which is the same thing that slows down the adoption of unisex bathrooms.
Copper Bezel wrote:We are discussing a conflict of incompatible interests.
I don't disagree. The phrase childish, pulled a particular chain. I don't believe in diminishing one group to do right by another.
Copper Bezel wrote: I think the conventions that make it possible for someone to make contact with the opposite sex optional, to never get over those debilitating anxieties, are not without a hand in creating the present situation.
Again I agree. But changing people takes time. And honestly segregated bathrooms are the least part of that. But what we are talking about is the last inch, instead of the last mile. Effectively what people seem to want are little separate rooms in a bigger room with sinks. And while I like that sort of facility it really doesn't solve any problem that I can see other than the stigma of a trans person having to use a gender inappropriate bathroom. Which I'll grant you, is a problem we need to solve.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby leady » Wed May 13, 2015 9:46 am UTC

You say icky feelings, but at what point does the proportion of majority that have significant issues in such scenarios outweigh the minority and by what criterion?

5% of women have a highly legitimate reason to want segregation as a starting point. God knows how many folks of both sexes use the toilets as an escape zone from the opposite sex, particularly in social scenarios. Bullying particularly in schools (I've heard girls are particularly vicious...). Then on top that you have those reasons that maybe illogical but... such as religion, teen mixing in adult free zones in schools etc.

Autolykos
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:32 am UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Autolykos » Wed May 13, 2015 9:59 am UTC

Azrael wrote:Again, I doubt there is as much money savings as you'd think. You still need the same number of toilets per person, they're just arranged differently.
Not quite. Average demand wouldn't change, of course. But the number of stalls isn't usually determined by average demand (otherwise, you'd have to stand in line about half of the time, which does not match my experience).
Instead, the number seems to be the upper bound of some confidence interval (probably somewhere between 80% and 95%). And the difference between mean and upper bound roughly scales with the square root of n. [/statistical handwaving]
So, in fact, you'd need only 40% more stalls in the double room than in each single room, saving you 30% of the stalls*. Maybe even one or two more, because the upper bound needs to be rounded up in each bathroom individually.

*Unless |x|>>sigma(x). But I expect mean usage of stalls at any time to be far less than one in all but the largest buildings, so the number is already mostly determined by variation and rounding.

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby cphite » Wed May 13, 2015 2:07 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:I mean, urinals shouldn't be designed to make accidentally seeing someone's penis an issue. Good urinals have privacy screens and idiots design urinals that do not.


There are actually quite a lot of urinals out there that don't have privacy screens, and it doesn't correlate to how "good" they are or even the quality of the surrounding construction.

But as far as I'm concerned, the discrimination angle is a secondary one and the cost and efficiency discussion is really a bit silly, because any minor disadvantage of one system or the other can easily be ameliorated by a slight procedural adjustment - the costs are really going to come out to be the same no matter what you do.


I keep hearing people talk about how minor the costs are going to be, or how they're going to be the same, and so forth... what is this based upon? Is there some actual data somewhere to support this? I suppose the costs should probably stay the same or even decrease for new construction; but if we're talking about renovating existing buildings, those costs of course go up.

No, I just think it's socially a good thing to not segregate. Concerns during the initial adjustment are minor, largely rather childish, and temporary.


Just playing devil's advocate here, but another argument I keep hearing is about how minor and temporary the adjustment will be; and here you're saying it's "childish" for people to even have concerns in the first place. I tend to agree; but that isn't the point at the moment.

If that is indeed the case, why change anything? If it truly doesn't matter, then why not leave it alone? The argument you seem to be making is that a person, regardless of their individual gender (or whatever term you like) shouldn't care about the gender (or whatever) of anyone else in the room... and if that is indeed the case, why is this even an issue?

Because you're basically saying that we ought to change something that, for better or for worse, is right now a broadly accepted part of our social interaction; and that we make this change so that a very, very small segment of our population isn't subjected to something that, according to your own argument, shouldn't matter to anyone.

As a disclaimer, I don't personally care one way or the other who is in the bathroom as long as they keep to their business and let me keep to mine. It just seems to me that the whole "it shouldn't matter" line of reasoning doesn't support the position of the folks using it.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Wed May 13, 2015 2:46 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
I keep hearing people talk about how minor the costs are going to be, or how they're going to be the same, and so forth... what is this based upon? Is there some actual data somewhere to support this? I suppose the costs should probably stay the same or even decrease for new construction; but if we're talking about renovating existing buildings, those costs of course go up.

For me, the ideal situation would be individual toilets for all. I'm not really interested in the cost because I think protecting vulnerable people is important.


Just playing devil's advocate here, but another argument I keep hearing is about how minor and temporary the adjustment will be; and here you're saying it's "childish" for people to even have concerns in the first place. I tend to agree; but that isn't the point at the moment.

If that is indeed the case, why change anything? If it truly doesn't matter, then why not leave it alone? The argument you seem to be making is that a person, regardless of their individual gender (or whatever term you like) shouldn't care about the gender (or whatever) of anyone else in the room... and if that is indeed the case, why is this even an issue?

That's not the issue. At least, I don't see it that way. The 'we should all just not care about gender' viewpoint is great but not realistic. A lot of people do care about gender. & Trans people should not be forced to out themselves to their family/co-workers when they use the bathroom of their gender. It can be dangerous for trans people to use the bathroom of the gender that they identify as also. Trans women have been beaten in men's bathrooms. You can be fired for being trans. You might be outed to your family who don't agree with your gender identity.

Gender non-conforming people who don't fit beautifully into the man/woman category can have huge issues too. Agender people - where do they go? Gender fluid people?

It's not as simple as 'well why doesn't everyone just chill about gender', it's protecting trans people and not forcing those who don't conform to the gender binary into boxes where they don't belong and risk being assaulted/fired/unwanted outings/etc.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby morriswalters » Wed May 13, 2015 4:14 pm UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:That's not the issue. At least, I don't see it that way. The 'we should all just not care about gender' viewpoint is great but not realistic. A lot of people do care about gender. & Trans people should not be forced to out themselves to their family/co-workers when they use the bathroom of their gender. It can be dangerous for trans people to use the bathroom of the gender that they identify as also. Trans women have been beaten in men's bathrooms. You can be fired for being trans. You might be outed to your family who don't agree with your gender identity.
Do you see the basic discontinuity in the idea of having gender neutral bathrooms with the idea of transgenderism the way you are discussing it? The problem in that case is not the bathrooms, the problem is with society. Your cure is to give them the capacity to hide. Keeping them safe is a laudable goal, hiding them just prolongs the time until society adjusts and makes their lives fuller and safer without having to hide.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Wed May 13, 2015 4:28 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Fractal_Tangent wrote:That's not the issue. At least, I don't see it that way. The 'we should all just not care about gender' viewpoint is great but not realistic. A lot of people do care about gender. & Trans people should not be forced to out themselves to their family/co-workers when they use the bathroom of their gender. It can be dangerous for trans people to use the bathroom of the gender that they identify as also. Trans women have been beaten in men's bathrooms. You can be fired for being trans. You might be outed to your family who don't agree with your gender identity.
Do you see the basic discontinuity in the idea of having gender neutral bathrooms with the idea of transgenderism the way you are discussing it? The problem in that case is not the bathrooms, the problem is with society. Your cure is to give them the capacity to hide. Keeping them safe is a laudable goal, hiding them just prolongs the time until society adjusts and makes their lives fuller and safer without having to hide.

So your solution is outing people until society is ok with it? How long is that going to take? I'm not down with forcing people out of the closet, that's generally considered bad form and can result in (as I said before) people getting fired/being assaulted/cut off from their family/friends who might not be ok with it.
You also didn't respond to my points about gender non-conforming/agender or genderfluid folks who might not love the idea of having to place themselves in an enforced binary situation.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby morriswalters » Wed May 13, 2015 4:58 pm UTC

No, I'm all for gender neutral bathrooms. Your making a case for hiding who they are. But if people don't have to look, they never have to adjust. I believe in the case that removes the need to hide. My response is to the type of argument you are making, not to what you want to accomplish. As for gender fluid and agender, I'm fully involved currently with updating my internal bias about trans gender people. I'll worry about the other cases later.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Wed May 13, 2015 5:09 pm UTC

It's not hiding. It's not actually hiding at all. If everyone uses the same bathrooms they're all hiding their gender. Oooh spooky. Not hiding, removing the need to out themselves. Keeping them safe for now. It's not an intellectual pretend argument we're having, people are literally murdered for being trans. I don't know how I can get you to know that the best solution for freakin' everyone is to not out people.

If your suggestion is 'well at some point in the distant future nobody will mind if you use the correct bathroom' fuck that because people die because they are trans. I don't know how I can put the suggestion of 'well do nothing because eventually it will be ok' doesn't work for me. You're also assuming that all trans people are totally ok with the risk of being assaulted so that they can become martyrs in the future.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed May 13, 2015 5:53 pm UTC

leady wrote:You say icky feelings, but at what point does the proportion of majority that have significant issues in such scenarios outweigh the minority and by what criterion?

I'm not discounting that there may be actual issues for wanting the bathrooms segregated (for example, a bathroom in a region known for a high incidence of male-to-female rape, either direction, would be well served to have one-person bathrooms with locks on the doors, or gender segregated bathrooms with a guard, or some similar security measure). I'm saying that people like Ixtellor have comprehensively failed to demonstrate any (for the general case), instead portraying "moderate discomfort around the opposite sex" as anywhere near equivalent to "actual emotional and physical violence visited upon actual genderqueer persons based on bathroom choice".

So far, the arguments seem to be "well, it might cost a lot of money to redesign the bathrooms (but I'm not going to explain why existing bathrooms would actually need to be redesigned), "oh people deserve privacy/dignity (but children, handicapped persons, homosexuals, and genderqueer persons don't count as people)", and similar. The primary cogent point against I've seen in this thread is that "US code mandates against it", something that the source recognizes as an outdated relic of the Victorian era, which seems like an argument to change the law, rather than an argument to do nothing.

5% of women have a highly legitimate reason to want segregation as a starting point.

What is this measurement in reference to?

God knows how many folks of both sexes use the toilets as an escape zone from the opposite sex, particularly in social scenarios. Bullying particularly in schools (I've heard girls are particularly vicious...).

As far as I'm aware, this is used to escape bullying from the same sex, too, (and from my own experience as a child, I would hazard this is done at comparable frequency) and the design of the bathroom stalls doesn't seem to be particularly geared toward protecting the user from a specific gender with intent to harm. Can you explain how a gender-segregated bathroom would ensure this protection in a way that a gender-combined bathroom would not?

Then on top that you have those reasons that maybe illogical but... such as religion, teen mixing in adult free zones in schools etc.

The religious are free to go to the bathroom at home, or use buildings set aside for religious purposes. It is not the duty of society to reinforce harassment of citizens at the whims of a powerful majority.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Wed May 13, 2015 6:06 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Whizbang » Wed May 13, 2015 5:56 pm UTC

I waggled my naked butt in the segregated men's rest/locker/shower room at my work today in honor of this thread.


Note: No moral, politcal, or philisophical meanings were intended by the above. It just happened. Deal with it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 13, 2015 7:36 pm UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:So your solution is outing people until society is ok with it? How long is that going to take? I'm not down with forcing people out of the closet, that's generally considered bad form and can result in (as I said before) people getting fired/being assaulted/cut off from their family/friends who might not be ok with it.
You also didn't respond to my points about gender non-conforming/agender or genderfluid folks who might not love the idea of having to place themselves in an enforced binary situation.


We don't really have to force anyone. Just kill some old laws mandating dumb things.

This won't entirely fix everything, of course, but it at least removes obstacles that inhibit change. If unsegregated bathrooms are legal, you'll likely have significant inertia, because most places don't wanna rebuild bathrooms overly quick, and social factors will still remain. Change will be slow, as people grow to accept it, in whatever manner that people find acceptable. I mean, we see today that sharing sinks really doesn't seem to make anyone care. Cheers. Maybe that and a little corporate penny pinching will result in a slow merge together of bathrooms. Whatever.

We don't need to force desegregation, we just need to allow it.

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby cphite » Wed May 13, 2015 8:32 pm UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:
cphite wrote:
I keep hearing people talk about how minor the costs are going to be, or how they're going to be the same, and so forth... what is this based upon? Is there some actual data somewhere to support this? I suppose the costs should probably stay the same or even decrease for new construction; but if we're talking about renovating existing buildings, those costs of course go up.


For me, the ideal situation would be individual toilets for all. I'm not really interested in the cost because I think protecting vulnerable people is important.


You may not be interested in the cost, but surely the people actually paying the costs should at least be considered?


Just playing devil's advocate here, but another argument I keep hearing is about how minor and temporary the adjustment will be; and here you're saying it's "childish" for people to even have concerns in the first place. I tend to agree; but that isn't the point at the moment.

If that is indeed the case, why change anything? If it truly doesn't matter, then why not leave it alone? The argument you seem to be making is that a person, regardless of their individual gender (or whatever term you like) shouldn't care about the gender (or whatever) of anyone else in the room... and if that is indeed the case, why is this even an issue?


That's not the issue. At least, I don't see it that way. The 'we should all just not care about gender' viewpoint is great but not realistic. A lot of people do care about gender. & Trans people should not be forced to out themselves to their family/co-workers when they use the bathroom of their gender. It can be dangerous for trans people to use the bathroom of the gender that they identify as also. Trans women have been beaten in men's bathrooms. You can be fired for being trans. You might be outed to your family who don't agree with your gender identity.


I know a woman who was beaten and subject to an attempted rape in a women's bathroom, by a man who had gone in, so that happens too.

The things you're describing aren't going to be fixed by single bathrooms. Someone who notices that a person is transgender in a men's or women's bathroom, is still going to notice in a unisex bathroom; so there isn't a whole lot of difference in terms of being outed. An asshole who'd beat up a trans woman in a men's bathroom is still going to be an asshole in a unisex bathroom; same for someone who'd fire a person for being trans, etc.

Gender non-conforming people who don't fit beautifully into the man/woman category can have huge issues too. Agender people - where do they go? Gender fluid people?


Pick one. Again, all of the potential dangers you mention are going to exist regardless of whether bathrooms are segregated or not.

It's not as simple as 'well why doesn't everyone just chill about gender', it's protecting trans people and not forcing those who don't conform to the gender binary into boxes where they don't belong and risk being assaulted/fired/unwanted outings/etc.


I don't have any objection to protecting people from assault, firings, and unwanted outings; however I don't see your proposed solution as actually protecting anyone from those things. You aren't making it any less likely that people notice them; nor are you making it any less likely that they face discrimination or even violence. Think about it - is the type of person who'd physically assault someone for being trans really going to be swayed by you pointing out to them that it's a unisex bathroom?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed May 13, 2015 8:48 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I don't disagree. The phrase childish, pulled a particular chain. I don't believe in diminishing one group to do right by another. [...] Again I agree. But changing people takes time. And honestly segregated bathrooms are the least part of that. But what we are talking about is the last inch, instead of the last mile.

Fair points.

cphite wrote:There are actually quite a lot of urinals out there that don't have privacy screens, and it doesn't correlate to how "good" they are or even the quality of the surrounding construction.

Well, no, as I said, the "waterfall" style tend to be seen in only the poshest of environs. Would "dumb" be a better word than "good" in this instance? Or how about the very standard-looking urinals that are often installed without screens, leading to running jokes about the private code of menfolk about never taking the center urinal in a string of three open ones, etc. because people seem almost universally uncomfortable using adjacent ones? There are laws about public displays of genitals. Yes, it's a bit silly - we all have them in some form or another, we all know this, and we seem intent on keeping it a secret. As long as that's the case, though...?

cphite wrote:I keep hearing people talk about how minor the costs are going to be, or how they're going to be the same, and so forth... what is this based upon? Is there some actual data somewhere to support this? I suppose the costs should probably stay the same or even decrease for new construction; but if we're talking about renovating existing buildings, those costs of course go up.

[...]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but another argument I keep hearing is about how minor and temporary the adjustment will be; and here you're saying it's "childish" for people to even have concerns in the first place. I tend to agree; but that isn't the point at the moment.

If that is indeed the case, why change anything? If it truly doesn't matter, then why not leave it alone? The argument you seem to be making is that a person, regardless of their individual gender (or whatever term you like) shouldn't care about the gender (or whatever) of anyone else in the room... and if that is indeed the case, why is this even an issue?

I'm not arguing for integrating all bathrooms overnight. I think it makes sense to allow them to make a gradual drift toward obsolescence. Segregating bathrooms is actively maintaining a notion that either is or ought to become outdated. Refitting old bathrooms, particularly if not as a part of some other unrelated remodeling process, seems impractical to me. But I think that choosing integrated bathrooms in new construction and in remodeling processes is the appropriate choice, because actively maintaining the convention of segregated bathrooms is an active choice with practical and social costs. There certainly shouldn't be building codes prohibiting it.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed May 13, 2015 9:30 pm UTC

cphite wrote:The things you're describing aren't going to be fixed by single bathrooms. Someone who notices that a person is transgender in a men's or women's bathroom, is still going to notice in a unisex bathroom; so there isn't a whole lot of difference in terms of being outed. An asshole who'd beat up a trans woman in a men's bathroom is still going to be an asshole in a unisex bathroom; same for someone who'd fire a person for being trans, etc.

As far as "noticing" -- how, actually? Unless they choose to use the urinal, I can't figure this one out.

As far as being an asshole -- sure, they're probably still gonna be an asshole. However, removing the "wrong bathroomness" out of the equation removes one of the triggers that can give the asshole an (in their head) excuse to get violent, while also diminishing the stigma on the genderqueer person.

I don't have any objection to protecting people from assault, firings, and unwanted outings; however I don't see your proposed solution as actually protecting anyone from those things. You aren't making it any less likely that people notice them; nor are you making it any less likely that they face discrimination or even violence. Think about it - is the type of person who'd physically assault someone for being trans really going to be swayed by you pointing out to them that it's a unisex bathroom?

Yes, as there are multiple news stories of this kind of outing being triggered by bathroom choice, at least if I've read the stories correctly.

You may not be interested in the cost, but surely the people actually paying the costs should at least be considered?

The "cost" is removing or choosing not to enforce the gender-based plumbing laws. That is seriously it. All the quibbling over toilet/urinal ratio in existing buildings is a complete red herring -- if the building owner finds it cheaper (time or moneywise) to rearrange the bathroom layout, then it is, kind of by definition, going to be cheaper. If it would cost more to rearrange the bathroom then the time/maintenance cost saved, then...no one's forcing them to rearrange the bathroom.

As far as I can tell, the only people in this thread suggesting that the bathrooms "should" be rebuilt in order to be unisex are the ones arguing that it is a reason not to make them unisex. I'm personally arguing the same concept Tyndmyr posted above -- at most, you need to slap a lable saying "come and get it" instead of "men only" or "women only".

Anyone trying to use a cost-based angle of attack really needs to apply their predicted costs to the model actually being proposed.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Wed May 13, 2015 10:05 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Fractal_Tangent wrote:
cphite wrote:
I keep hearing people talk about how minor the costs are going to be, or how they're going to be the same, and so forth... what is this based upon? Is there some actual data somewhere to support this? I suppose the costs should probably stay the same or even decrease for new construction; but if we're talking about renovating existing buildings, those costs of course go up.


For me, the ideal situation would be individual toilets for all. I'm not really interested in the cost because I think protecting vulnerable people is important.


You may not be interested in the cost, but surely the people actually paying the costs should at least be considered?


Just playing devil's advocate here, but another argument I keep hearing is about how minor and temporary the adjustment will be; and here you're saying it's "childish" for people to even have concerns in the first place. I tend to agree; but that isn't the point at the moment.

If that is indeed the case, why change anything? If it truly doesn't matter, then why not leave it alone? The argument you seem to be making is that a person, regardless of their individual gender (or whatever term you like) shouldn't care about the gender (or whatever) of anyone else in the room... and if that is indeed the case, why is this even an issue?


That's not the issue. At least, I don't see it that way. The 'we should all just not care about gender' viewpoint is great but not realistic. A lot of people do care about gender. & Trans people should not be forced to out themselves to their family/co-workers when they use the bathroom of their gender. It can be dangerous for trans people to use the bathroom of the gender that they identify as also. Trans women have been beaten in men's bathrooms. You can be fired for being trans. You might be outed to your family who don't agree with your gender identity.


I know a woman who was beaten and subject to an attempted rape in a women's bathroom, by a man who had gone in, so that happens too.

The things you're describing aren't going to be fixed by single bathrooms. Someone who notices that a person is transgender in a men's or women's bathroom, is still going to notice in a unisex bathroom; so there isn't a whole lot of difference in terms of being outed. An asshole who'd beat up a trans woman in a men's bathroom is still going to be an asshole in a unisex bathroom; same for someone who'd fire a person for being trans, etc.

Gender non-conforming people who don't fit beautifully into the man/woman category can have huge issues too. Agender people - where do they go? Gender fluid people?


Pick one. Again, all of the potential dangers you mention are going to exist regardless of whether bathrooms are segregated or not.

It's not as simple as 'well why doesn't everyone just chill about gender', it's protecting trans people and not forcing those who don't conform to the gender binary into boxes where they don't belong and risk being assaulted/fired/unwanted outings/etc.


I don't have any objection to protecting people from assault, firings, and unwanted outings; however I don't see your proposed solution as actually protecting anyone from those things. You aren't making it any less likely that people notice them; nor are you making it any less likely that they face discrimination or even violence. Think about it - is the type of person who'd physically assault someone for being trans really going to be swayed by you pointing out to them that it's a unisex bathroom?


So all of my responses were in line with the idea of having single bathrooms, not a unisex bathroom.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Azrael » Thu May 14, 2015 12:03 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:...the costs are really going to come out to be the same no matter what you do.

KrytenKoro wrote:The "cost" is removing or choosing not to enforce the gender-based plumbing laws. That is seriously it.

When discussing single-occupancy bathrooms as a proposed solution (like Fractal is), those statements are entirely incorrect. I've explained in sufficient detail earlier, but I can continue bringing up things like individual sprinkler heads, smoke detectors and fire alarms for each little room if you'd prefer. The cost increase is significant -- a point proven not just by analysis or expertise, but demonstrated by the fact that such a huge percent of buildings are currently built the other way. The old way is cheaper. It just is.

If discussing new construction, unisex, multi-occupancy bathroom with roughly 30% urinals and similar construction to any commercial bathroom found today, there is no additional cost. If the urinals go, there is a marginal increase to both cost and water consumption.

Being clear about what you're proposing when making blanket statements would be useful.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Thu May 14, 2015 12:50 pm UTC

My feelings are that single occupancy bathrooms make things safer for trans people and I feel like that's the most important thing. I'm less worried about cost than I am about people being assaulted etc.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu May 14, 2015 1:35 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:When discussing single-occupancy bathrooms as a proposed solution (like Fractal is), those statements are entirely incorrect. I've explained in sufficient detail earlier, but I can continue bringing up things like individual sprinkler heads, smoke detectors and fire alarms for each little room if you'd prefer. The cost increase is significant -- a point proven not just by analysis or expertise, but demonstrated by the fact that such a huge percent of buildings are currently built the other way. The old way is cheaper. It just is.

I had misinterpreted Fractal's posts, then. In fairness, many of the posts talking about cost also seem to be describing multi-person bathrooms.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Azrael » Thu May 14, 2015 2:21 pm UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:My feelings are that single occupancy bathrooms make things safer for trans people and I feel like that's the most important thing. I'm less worried about cost than I am about people being assaulted etc.

I agree, but this thread has been littered with people being careless or misrepresenting practical concerns in order to make their arguments. I'm just getting really sick of people being aloof about reality in order to try to bolster those argument with poorly-informed appeals to a practical benefit. None of these proposals will save money -- multi-occupancy unisex will still require the same number of facilities per building population with a slight uptick in expense likely, and single occupancy are unambiguously more expensive.

The benefit in multi-occupancy unisex is in social equality. Single-occupancy carries the same benefit plus your mentioned improvements in physical safety / mental well-being for people along any of the non-binary axes.

A very simple practical answer is already well established in practice -- gender segregated multi-occupancy combined with a percent of single-occupancy unisex. No one's status quo gets fucked up, there is no hearts & minds campaign needed. No one has to start asking questions about how to handle childcare or schools, and get into an endless cycle of why it [is / is not] different. Safety is improved, as are handicap access and accommodations for parents with infants. If you want practical, it already exists.

If you want additional social benefit, make the case why the practical solution isn't good enough, and understand that the argument has to be convincing on it's own merit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 14, 2015 3:15 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:A very simple practical answer is already well established in practice -- gender segregated multi-occupancy combined with a percent of single-occupancy unisex. No one's status quo gets fucked up, there is no hearts & minds campaign needed. No one has to start asking questions about how to handle childcare or schools, and get into an endless cycle of why it [is / is not] different. Safety is improved, as are handicap access and accommodations for parents with infants. If you want practical, it already exists.

If you want additional social benefit, make the case why the practical solution isn't good enough, and understand that the argument has to be convincing on it's own merit.


My shop currently has a single-stall bathroom. I'm looking at expanding, and adding one or two additional bathrooms. Layout utterly prevents me from linking any of these together. They're small spaces about perfect for single stall bathrooms, but I have to work with the existing building. So, if I have two-three individual bathrooms anyways, I get no benefit whatsoever from slapping gender labels on them. People simply need to, on average, walk farther if I do that. Handicapped accessibility is required by law anyways, and is utterly irrelevant.

A requirement for gendering bathrooms, regardless of if I can *also* have a unisex bathroom, is strictly inferior to me compared to having all unisex bathrooms, on a practical basis.

I don't mind other systems also existing, but I think it's strange that some localities would restrict or prohibit this.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby mosc » Thu May 14, 2015 3:34 pm UTC

We have separate bathrooms because we are terrified as a society about sexualizing children. We don't want our little girls seeing a penis until... by conservative positions after her wedding night. We avoid "the birds and the bees" conversation at all costs until well into puberty which requires systematic segregation by gender.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu May 14, 2015 4:00 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:I agree, but this thread has been littered with people being careless or misrepresenting practical concerns in order to make their arguments. I'm just getting really sick of people being aloof about reality in order to try to bolster those argument with poorly-informed appeals to a practical benefit. None of these proposals will save money -- multi-occupancy unisex will still require the same number of facilities per building population with a slight uptick in expense likely, and single occupancy are unambiguously more expensive.

I've backed off on what I see as the cost issue largely because I do think it's a distraction, and I've said as much. I don't see how you can predict a "slight uptick in expense" in multi-occupancy unisex bathrooms, because the people to facilities ratio is the same assuming equal numbers of men and women at all times, and segregated bathrooms become less efficient when they are temporarily not equal. Stating the obvious, adding a third, single-occupancy, unisex bathroom will have a cost associated, too, but it's probably a sensible thing to have.

The only place I see a "cost" benefit - and it's not direct costs that apply in exactly the same way in all cases, but it's one of my main concerns in this topic - is that maintaining the convention is an additional design limitation. It's something that both planners and occupants have to work around. Small costs and inconveniences will come up, and they're going to vary with the situation. Social side is much the same - the case of trans and non-binary people is just a scenario that happens to break the system, but it could be damn near anything. The split and the taboo of who can shit in which hole is just something that has to be actively maintained.

And from my perspective, the only "benefits" of the system result from inertia.
Last edited by Copper Bezel on Thu May 14, 2015 4:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu May 14, 2015 4:04 pm UTC

A very simple practical answer is already well established in practice -- gender segregated multi-occupancy combined with a percent of single-occupancy unisex. No one's status quo gets fucked up, there is no hearts & minds campaign needed. No one has to start asking questions about how to handle childcare or schools, and get into an endless cycle of why it [is / is not] different. Safety is improved, as are handicap access and accommodations for parents with infants. If you want practical, it already exists.

Declaring the problem "solved", especially for schools, based on a thing that most schoolds do not do is quite naive. Some colleges may have unisex bathrooms, but as far as primary schools, the closest thing I've ever seen to a unisex bathroom is the stall in the nurse's office, which is not open to at-will use. There are plenty of news stories about children suffering harassment based on bathroom choice in school.

(Not to mention that treating the unisex bathroom as the "Other-people bathroom" is basically a recipe for further harassment among children.)

If you want additional social benefit, make the case why the practical solution isn't good enough, and understand that the argument has to be convincing on it's own merit.

No. A very solid, forceful No. The burden of proof is not on those arguing that enforcing segregation provides no benefit. Fractal may be arguing for single occupancy bathrooms, but those you're criticizing as "being aloof about reality", like me, are arguing for simply not enforcing laws about gender segregation. It it completely illogical to demand that we justify why it should be allowable to not enforce segregation (though that's not to say that we haven't put forward basic explanations -- see what Tyndmyr mentioned above, and the accessibility/flow argument has been brought up in this thread already.
). It is absolutely the duty of those arguing for maintaining the legal enforcement of segregation to explain why it trumps basic issues of equality, especially in light of the harassment that does happen.

The only place I see a "cost" benefit - and it's not direct costs that apply in exactly the same way in all cases, but it's one of my main concerns in this topic - is that maintaining the convention is an additional design limitation. It's something that both planners and occupants have to work around. Small costs and inconveniences will come up, and they're going to vary with the situation. Social side is much the same - the case of trans and non-binary people is just a scenario that happens to break the system, but it could be damn near anything. The split and the taboo of who can shit in which hole is just something that has to be actively maintained.

Very much agreed. The cost issue, at least for the proposal of simply not enforcing the segregation if not for the proposal of creating new single-occupancy bathrooms, is a derailment.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby elasto » Thu May 14, 2015 4:18 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:No. A very solid, forceful No. The burden of proof is not on those arguing that enforcing segregation provides no benefit. Fractal may be arguing for single occupancy bathrooms, but those you're criticizing as "being aloof about reality", like me, are arguing for simply not enforcing laws about gender segregation. It it completely illogical to demand that we justify why it should be allowable to not enforce segregation

+1

It'd be like if the US had laws saying beaches had to be split up into single-sex areas only - on the grounds that 'most people would be uncomfortable with strangers of the opposite sex looking at their near-naked body'.

Sure, if all beaches were gender-segregated, people probably would find it weird and uncomfortable going to a unisex beach for the first time. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy like that. But they'd quickly think nothing of it - as witnessed to by the fact that most people think nothing of unisex beaches now.

I'd argue that the case for unisex beaches and bathrooms being economically efficient is a strong one; I'd also argue that society would be quick to adapt, and that, having adapted, society would be the better for it.

But even if those arguments are not persuasive, the burden of proof is on those who say that the freedom to choose should be limited by the force of law...

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Azrael » Thu May 14, 2015 5:13 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
If you want additional social benefit, make the case why the practical solution isn't good enough, and understand that the argument has to be convincing on it's own merit.
No. A very solid, forceful No. The burden of proof is not on those arguing that enforcing segregation provides no benefit.

Society is doing a thing. That thing causes issues. A practical part measure has been found, although not widely implemented retroactively to existing construction, that addresses most of the concerns ( like harassment based on bathroom choice). You're arguing for making a more encompassing change. Based on your last post, you also seem to be arguing that the larger change should be made retroactively.

Yeah, the burden is ours to convince people to change. Not if this were a course on logic, granted, and we were actually talking about burden of proof. But the issue is trying to convince people to change behavior. To do that will need arguments that have merit. There are lots of them in the thread -- and my point is that cost savings isn't one. A challenge to the legal requirement for gendered bathrooms itself could likely be built upon the idea that the original requirement can't prove it's worth.

Although it's sorta odd that when challenged to focus on sound arguments your response is a resounding "no".

Declaring the problem "solved", especially for schools, based on a thing that most schools do not do is quite naive

Think about the implications of this rebuttal for a second: Fully unisex bathrooms are being proposed as a solution. But most schools don't to that; maybe even none. By your argument, that makes the proposed solution just as naive as the multi-plus-single-unisex solution that I brought up. Or even more naive in comparison, in that one of those proposals is already widespread in new construction.

So let's get back to making merit-based arguments, because "naivety" isn't one.

Azrael wrote:I agree, but this thread has been littered with people being careless or misrepresenting practical concerns in order to make their arguments. I'm just getting really sick of people being aloof about reality in order to try to bolster those argument with poorly-informed appeals to a practical benefit. None of these proposals will save money -- multi-occupancy unisex will still require the same number of facilities per building population with a slight uptick in expense likely, and single occupancy are unambiguously more expensive.
but those you're criticizing as "being aloof about reality", like me,

I've added the context of the quote back in, because I don't recall you making poor arguments about cost savings and trying to use those non-existent savings to bolster your arguments. I think you've pulled that out of context and are using it to misrepresent my point. But if you do feel that I was describing you? I think you should stop making flimsy cost-savings arguments, and use arguments with actual merit.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby SDK » Thu May 14, 2015 5:24 pm UTC

Azrael, do you agree that the particular law enforcing the creation of sex segregated washrooms is a bad one?

Surely a business owner should at least be allowed to create unisex washrooms. Probably won't happen in the vast majority of cases, especially if you're right that the majority of people prefer it the old fashioned way. I think all Kryten is arguing for is the abolishment of that law.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby Azrael » Thu May 14, 2015 5:25 pm UTC

For fuck's sake, how many times in a thread do I have to say that I support unisex bathrooms? I was challenging the bad assumptions based on cost.

Now I'm challenging some crappy rhetoric.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Segregated Bathrooms [Thread Split]

Postby SDK » Thu May 14, 2015 5:29 pm UTC

You don't, which is why I was confused when you started talking about burden of proof during a discussion of that law, then came back strongly against Kryten when he was again talking about that law.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests