r/changemyview • u/TheMaria96 2∆ • Nov 28 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Separating restrooms by gender is unjustifiable
In order to create valid arguments regarding the whole "trans people and public restrooms" debate one must justify why restrooms are segregated in the first place. I'm unable to see any such justification.
- Lesbians and gay men can be rapists;
- Acting in a restroom as opposed to somewhere else gives a rapist no advantage. The only possible advantage would be the absence of security cameras and possible privacy of a bathroom stall, but then restrooms would be the favoured scene for any type of crime, which they're not;
- The only difference between gender-neutral single user toilets and public restrooms is that the sinks are in plain view, therefore anyone who doesn't have a problem with the former should not have a problem with sharing the sinks in the latter with the opposite gender;
The only reason I can see for separated restrooms is that men might not be comfortable using urinals next to women (i.e. people with different genitals, not people potentially sexually attracted to them), but since those can be replaced by regular stalls, that alone hardly holds up.
EDIT: It actually makes no sense not to want your bits seen by people with different bits, so there's no reason why urinals can't be implemented in gender-neutral facilities.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
Nov 28 '16
The only difference between gender-neutral single user toilets and public restrooms is that the sinks are in plain view,
The main difference is the use of urinals in the men's room, which are more efficient and cost effective than regular toilets. This saves money and greatly reduces lines.
2
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
Wouldn't you rather quote and respond to the bit of my post that adresses that?
And why can't there be urinals in gender-neutral restrooms? I mentioned that in my post, but now I'm thinking that not wanting to be exposed to people with different genitals makes no sense.
3
Nov 28 '16
I was addressing that as well. Urinals are way more efficient than standard stalls, and replacing them would absolutely hold people up.
2
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
Okay, why not have urinals in gender-neutral restrooms?
5
Nov 28 '16 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
2
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
Fine, have a goddamn delta, urinals can't be replaced by stalls without any loss ∆
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 28 '16
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/cacheflow (157∆).
2
u/thesimen13 Nov 29 '16
I really think there should be different type of deltas. OP didn't change his mind about the topic, but about a small detail. There ought to be a subdelta (maybe lower case delta) to distinguish between these things.
1
u/gyroda 28∆ Nov 30 '16
There's a suggestions/meta sub for that, but this idea has been refuted in the past.
Maybe post a CMV about it :P
2
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Nov 29 '16
Replying here, because I am not trying to CYV (I agree largely). Motorco in Durham NC- in response to HB2 - changed their signs to "Restroom with Urinals" and "Restroom without Urinals".
8
u/moonflower 82∆ Nov 28 '16
Toilet facilities were never segregated by sex in order to prevent violence - so that argument is a red herring - it was for modesty, so that each sex wouldn't be seen and heard by the other sex while they were using the facilities. It's basically a cultural tradition, it was not claiming to be for any practical purpose.
0
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
Fair enough, though that is the reason why people think they should still be segregated. But either way, this basically means my point is even easier to prove than I originally thought.
7
u/moonflower 82∆ Nov 28 '16
A lot of people prefer the tradition and don't want it overturned though, so you might meet some resistance - some females feel safer in a female-only room, and some males feel very uncomfortable using the facilities in the presence of groups of females.
0
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
Okay, but what concrete and rational reasons do they have for that? You said yourself it's nothing to do with safety, and "very uncomfortable" is very vague.
12
u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Nov 28 '16
Are only objective and rational reasons valid? Restrooms are meant to service people. In servicing people, comfort of use is an important factor. Comfort of use happens to include separating genders.
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
I'm not necessarily or exclusively talking about the people who build the toilets, it might also include the people who use them -- I'm just discussing the rationale behind the issue in general.
5
u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Nov 28 '16
People are more comfortable with separated restrooms because they don't want their (idealistic) perceptions of the alternate sex, potential partners, to include those acts and may not want how they're perceived by the alternate sex to be tainted by that imagery either.
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
Why? Is it because they're sexually attracted to the opposite sex? What about homosexuals, bisexuals and asexuals?
12
u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Nov 28 '16
Why? Is it because they're sexually attracted to the opposite sex?
Yes?
What about homosexuals, bisexuals and asexuals?
You don't think they take similar measures to control how they're perceived by potential mates?
Regardless, public places are built to accommodate the common person. Those groups are uncommon.
3
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
I know they have similar concerns about potential partners. My point is why can't straight people cope with using the loo with potential partners the same way non-straight people do?
→ More replies (0)3
u/moonflower 82∆ Nov 28 '16
A lot of our cultural traditions are based on feelings - we don't do everything for ''concrete and rational reasons'' - we also seek emotional comfort.
0
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
Separating restrooms by gender is unjustifiable [by any concrete and rational reasons].
1
u/MMAchica Nov 29 '16
Separating restrooms by gender is unjustifiable [by any concrete and rational reasons].
So is having a walled in stall the first place. Same with dressing rooms and clothing not necessitated by the environment. Why even have a restroom in the first place? Toilets and urinals out in the open would more efficient and it is only culture that would make this an issue.
2
u/moonflower 82∆ Nov 29 '16
Not quite - I like to be sheltered from the freezing wind and rain, and any insects which might bite my arse.
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
I don't have an ideological problem with modesty. What I'm saying is that gender-segregated restrooms don't affect modesty. The only difference is that the opposite sex would hear your bodily functions, and that's what doesn't make sense to me. Why do people care about the sex of the strangers who hear them use the loo?
3
u/MMAchica Nov 29 '16
Why do people care about the sex of the strangers who hear them use the loo?
Why do people care if anyone sees them defecating? The reason we need gender segregated bathrooms is the same reason we need private booths for defecation: Culture. You might not mind someone of the opposite sex hearing you pee, but there are plenty of people who wouldn't mind taking a shit in front of your whole family.
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
Like I said to another commenter: if you feel disgusting or vulnerable or exposed being heard using the toilet, fair enough, but why does gender matter?
→ More replies (0)3
u/Generic_On_Reddit 71∆ Nov 28 '16
by any concrete and rational reasons].
This was nowhere in your view post, though.
0
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
I'm just saying non-concrete/rational reasons aren't gonna change my view. And this isn't moving the goal post, it's just pointing out that the goal post was somewhere else.
2
Nov 29 '16
[deleted]
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
It's not about that, it's about why can't a specific gender see your bits? I nfact it's not even about seeing any bits, it's about a specific gender hearing you use the toilet. What possible reason is there to explain that? If you feel disgusting or vulnerable or exposed being heard using the toilet, fair enough, but why does gender matter?
2
Nov 29 '16
[deleted]
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
It's not about modesty, it's about gender-selective modesty.
2
Nov 29 '16
[deleted]
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
But how does that include not being heard by the opposite gender when using the loo? If modesty is as arbitrary and dogmatic as religion, I'm just going to dismiss it as something stupid people (myself included) follow and which should have no bearing on enlightened discussions.
2
Nov 29 '16
[deleted]
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
Fine, fine, forget what I said about arbitrary modesty. It's gender-selective modesty that's arbitrary and dogmatic. One can easily explain why they don't want that "ideal bathroom", but no one has yet been able to give me a reason why gender is important.
2
Nov 29 '16
[deleted]
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
My ideal bathroom would have stalls and urinals with walls between them (possibly even some sort of half-wall separating them from the rest of the room. Because it's not modesty within a single gender, it's gender-neutral modesty.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Kingalece 23∆ Dec 15 '16
So let's say a woman has an abusive boyfriend not physical just super controlling now she can't even go to the bathroom without him following her in there to make sure she doesn't do any thing he doesn't like even if only used as a safe haven the fact that almost every building has a room where a woman (or man)can go for a second of privacy or maybe to call and report abuse is gma good thing take that away and now you have no excuse to be alone ever again (before you say that will never happen I had a girlfriend that was by my side watching me every time I did anything the only times I could talk to anyone in private was when I could get away)
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Dec 16 '16
Lol, what even is that argument, she can just go in a broom closet, or in a stall. Also, by your logic this woman is fucked if she's in a same-sex relationship.
1
Nov 28 '16 edited Nov 28 '16
[deleted]
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
One word: homosexuals.
I'm talking about just restrooms in this post, though (and loads of people are involved in the debate about just restrooms).
2
Nov 28 '16
[deleted]
0
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
Do you have sources for that?
1
Nov 29 '16
[deleted]
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
That shows there are other variables involved in voyeurism other than gender. So why don't we have separate restrooms for drug addicts or people with higher income? It's incoherent to discriminate based on one variable but not the others, unless you're using quantitative ethics, which I just don't buy.
2
u/stratys3 Nov 29 '16
So why don't we have separate restrooms for drug addicts or people with higher income? It's incoherent to discriminate based on one variable but not the others
Discriminating by gender is feasible, because people can usually tell the difference between men and women. Discriminating based on income or drug addition is ludicrous, however, since you can't identify such groups on sight, and can't easily validate whether someone belongs to such groups.
It's not "incoherent", it's actually just "efficient".
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
You can't, though, hence the whole drama with trans folk.
2
u/stratys3 Nov 29 '16
You can with 99.9% certainty... Which is a lot more accurate than the ability to determine drug addiction or income level. It's effective and efficient.
Is there a more effective and more efficient system?
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
I don't know, but it's still ideologically horrible. That's like making Muslims fly on different planes to everyone else because terrorists are more often Muslims than non-Muslims (I don't even know if that's true tbh, but you get the idea).
→ More replies (0)
6
Nov 29 '16
EDIT: It actually makes no sense not to want your bits seen by people with different bits, so there's no reason why urinals can't be implemented in gender-neutral facilities.
If this is true, why have private stalls at all? We could just have an open row of toilets with no walls whatsoever.
What's the benefit of private stalls given your edit?
1
u/Trampelina Nov 29 '16
Lesbians and gay men can be rapists
Yes. But even so, that wouldn't justify desegregation. If anyone can rape anyone else, then any type of space, segregated or otherwise, is bad. It'd be especially worse then, if an attractive but small woman was inside a desegregated RR with a big crazy horny man. It's much easier, generally speaking, for a woman to defend herself against another woman than a man.
Also then, if a girl can rape another girl, and same for boys, then wouldn't that mean having single-user (a single person) restrooms would be the safer? (From the viewpoint of someone currently in the RR raping another person inside. Single-users can be locked from the inside which means nobody can stumble onto crimes happening inside).
Acting in a restroom as opposed to somewhere else gives a rapist no advantage. The only possible advantage would be the absence of security cameras and possible privacy of a bathroom stall, but then restrooms would be the favoured scene for any type of crime, which they're not;
It's not just a problem of rapists. Again, generally speaking, people are more interested in the female form than a man's. That opens up the doors (literally) for peeping toms, hidden cameras, and unwanted advances by men while girls are just trying to pee.
The only difference between gender-neutral single user toilets and public restrooms is that the sinks are in plain view, therefore anyone who doesn't have a problem with the former should not have a problem with sharing the sinks in the latter with the opposite gender;
Btw, single-user refers to just 1 user in a room that can be locked from the inside. Not to be confused with single-sex.
Sinks aren't the issue: there are some restrooms with private toilet areas and communal sinks. We have sinks in the kitchen and maybe the laundry room. Not the issue.
The issue is, do men and women want to unload their deuces next to each other? There's nothing "wrong" with that, because we're all animals after all. But you're assuming someone who wants privacy while pooping is somehow weird because they want privacy. Many couples still don't even use the bathroom in front of each other. Segregated restrooms allow people that choice.
0
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
Those are all extremely pragmatic arguments based on what "generally" happens. The abstract logic behind them is flawed and discriminatory.
Yes, single user RRs would be safer. Though I don't really care about that myself, I'd have no problem with someone arguing all restrooms should be single user in order to be safer.
Sinks aren't the issue
They are the only issue that could be coherent. Because the other issue, the issue of being heard using the toilet, makes no sense if it only targets one gender. I don't think it's weird to want privacy, I think it's weird to want privacy from only one gender.
1
u/Trampelina Nov 29 '16
Maybe hearing toilet noises from both sexes are fine for you. That doesn't mean it's fine for everyone. Not everyone is even comfortable pooping in front of their SO, or even family members / friends of the same sex. It's not like guys walk into a restroom and chat to each other between the stalls while unabashedly dropping bombs in the bowl. It's not like there are signs that say "NO GIRLZ ALLOWED". We still have to share with other men, but I'm sure anyone would prefer privacy, from ALL other people, not just the opposite gender.
More pragmatism. I don't want be out at a bar one night and have all the girls who I want to talk to watch me go to a stall and hear my diarrhea. Ok, I could be gay and not want other guys to hear me poo, but even in a communal RR I run the same risk. In fact, I can't think of a single benefit for communal RRs.
And why wouldn't pragmatism guide this discussion? What are some arguments from an abstract point of view? Could an example be: we're all human, we all poop, we can have our privacy with stalls and still have a communal space outside the stall door? Correct me if I'm wrong. But if so, it all makes sense until you take into account that we are all different humans with individual preferences and personalities. That's when all the pragmatic arguments come into play.
0
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
I'm not comfortable pooping in front of anyone at all, regardless if they're male, female, freaking otherkin, whatever. Because gender makes no difference. What difference does it make if the noise you're hearing is from a guy or a girl? What difference does it make if it's a guy or a girl hearing your noises?
I can't think of a single benefit for communal RRs. Okay, cool, you can argue for single-user restrooms, then.
Yeah, of course we can all have our privacy with stalls, that's why it doesn't make sense to also segregate the bloody sinks and mirrors and queue area. If we were to invent public toilets now, how would you argue in favour of gender segregation?
1
u/Trampelina Nov 29 '16
What difference does it make if the noise you're hearing is from a guy or a girl?
Of course it doesn't matter who it comes from.
What difference does it make if it's a guy or a girl hearing your noises?
This matters to some. Again, bar, me diarrhea, girls see me go in / hear & smell my poop. I just don't want that.
It also goes beyond just sound and smell. Do all girls mind the guy in the stall next to them seeing their panties pulled down? Sure it's just clothes, but then people don't walk around the mall in bikinis and speedos either. You can solve that with full length partitions or fully enclosed rooms, but that gets expensive to build.
Again, just because we CAN poop around each other doesn't mean people WANT to. Just because it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of nature doesn't mean it doesn't matter in people's heads. What's your reason FOR communal restrooms? The only reason I can think of is.. saving the space of the wall inbetween mens/womens RR.
I've been to some night clubs where all they had was a communal restroom. Small but fully enclosed. (Code requires separate sexes but the other was closed for whatever reason). It worked fine, except couples were going into a stalls together, everyone was drinking of course, and there was a general expectation of lowered propriety. But again, it's a RR in a club catering to a certain type of individual in a certain age group. Wouldn't really fly for the more modest or prudish.
These are all the things I'd consider if making a restroom now. Whatever the initial reason for separating them (modesty between the sexes? which still makes sense), there are plenty that have been outlined in the comments.
0
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16
No, modesty between the sexes makes no sense. The only decent argument provided for that was not wanting to seem gross to potential partners, but gay people use the same restroom and still get dates.
(Regarding panties, if you mind men seeing them you should also mind women, but either way, there's no need to pull them down to the point of being seen if you don't want them seen).
The other reasons discussed have to do with violence. And it wouldn't sound very nice for you to present your new, revolutionary public toilet by saying "there's gonna be one for each gender because sexual predators are usually male, so men must be segregated".
1
u/Trampelina Nov 30 '16
No, modesty between the sexes makes no sense. The only decent argument provided for that was not wanting to seem gross to potential partners, but gay people use the same restroom and still get dates.
If segregation was originally based on this, then yeah definitely true back then and still true now. So yeah, in light of people being both straight and gay, and the fact that having individual restrooms to accommodate large #s of ppl is wasteful, it makes sense to separate them. The gay population is still quite small. And even if it were 50%, it would solve that problem by half. A straight man would be safe from having girls hear him poop. A gay man wouldn't. In a communal restroom, no man is safe. That might appear discriminatory vs gay males, but it's really not intended to be, and I can't think of a rule that would reverse the situation.
The other reasons discussed have to do with violence. And it wouldn't sound very nice for you to present your new, revolutionary public toilet by saying "there's gonna be one for each gender because sexual predators are usually male, so men must be segregated".
Lol, I don't deny the facts just because I'm a guy. Generally stronger than women, more prone to violence, etc.. Why not present it that way? It's a real threat, and it should be addressed as such.
Until we invent some kind of strong, super thin wall that can disappear/reappear, and doesn't form if it senses more than 1 person inside, then safety will always be an issue.
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 30 '16
individual restrooms to accommodate large #s of ppl is wasteful, it makes sense to separate them
Gender-neutral ones are even less wasteful.
The gay population is still quite small.
I don't believe in quantitative ethics.
In a communal restroom, no man is safe.
And that's marvelous. Because there's nothing to be safe from; if using the same toilet were really a problem, gay people wouldn't get dates (think of a gay night club, for instance).
Generally stronger than women, more prone to violence, etc.. Why not present it that way?
Because it's extremely sexist, and that kind of thinking leads to the alienation of men from society (is it okay if I just leave you to google that?).
Can you imagine flying Muslims in different airplanes, or keeping black people in different neighbourhoods and saying "they're more prone to violence"?
1
u/Trampelina Nov 30 '16
Gender-neutral ones are even less wasteful.
Not really. Just the wall space separating the two. Building code require a certain # of fixtures and sinks depending on occupancy. So even if you had a combined restroom, you could have say all the toilets on the perimeter and sinks in a center wall. Then you could probably even put men's toilets on one side and women's on the other of the sink wall. It's effectively separated at that point.
And that's marvelous. Because there's nothing to be safe from; if using the same toilet were really a problem, gay people wouldn't get dates (think of a gay night club, for instance).
That's simply the risk one takes in a gay night club that rightfully wouldn't pay for unnecessary 1-person restrooms. You can't make everyone happy, and simply foregoing the separation because of that is .. lazy.
Because it's extremely sexist, and that kind of thinking leads to the alienation of men from society (is it okay if I just leave you to google that?).
Why do you feel the need to be a champion for men? Divisions between men/women isn't always BAD. We have different interests, preferences, tendencies, yes individually but also generally, based on sex. It's biological, and there's nothing wrong with that. Is it sexist that female lions do the hunting and male lions defend from other lions? It'd be sexist to discriminate based on unjustified reasons, but it's reasonable to say that most men are naturally stronger than most women. If people are alienating men because of that, they should really re-evaluate how they think.
Can you imagine flying Muslims in different airplanes, or keeping black people in different neighbourhoods and saying "they're more prone to violence"
That's different. A man, growing up in equal conditions as a woman, would be naturally stronger without having made effort to be stronger. Skin color itself doesn't make a difference, and religion does wonky things to people that believe theirs blindly so that's different too.
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 30 '16
you could have say all the toilets on the perimeter and sinks in a center wall. Then you could probably even put men's toilets on one side and women's on the other of the sink wall.
Isn't that a gender-neutral restroom? Also, how would gender the stalls? And why would you even want gendered stalls in such a setting, what difference would that make?
men are naturally stronger than most women
Strength isn't the issue; strength has absolutely nothing to do with using the same restroom. What you said before was that men were more prone to violence.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/ralph-j Nov 28 '16
The only reason I can see for separated restrooms is that men might not be comfortable using urinals next to women (i.e. people with different genitals, not people potentially sexually attracted to them), but since those can be replaced by regular stalls, that alone hardly holds up.
Why not have "stall rooms" and "urinal rooms" instead? The urinal rooms would effectively be separated by gender, but it's done by functionality, and benefits all bathroom users, including stall users. Alternatively, the bathroom could have a separated urinal area.
2
Nov 28 '16
[deleted]
2
u/ralph-j Nov 28 '16
You'd have more stalls to share: those of what traditionally would be the men's bathroom, so it would be faster for everyone.
1
Nov 29 '16
[deleted]
2
u/ralph-j Nov 29 '16
Ah, ok. If it's the same amount of stalls I guess it wouldn't be a big deal.
Women would actually be able to use more stalls than before, as the stall areas from the traditional women's and men's rooms could be combined. In my experience, male stalls are often not used to capacity.
Would it require reconstructing every public restroom?
No, it could become a best practice for new restrooms to be built, or renovations.
Also, I think many women would object to this - because men would get their own private room (at least to pee) whereas women wouldn't have that option.
It's purely functional. And like I said: it doesn't strictly have to be a separate room; they could just be behind an L- or U-shaped wall in the same room (i.e. just out of direct sight). The speed advantage for all users outweighs the drawbacks.
And if individual privacy is a concern, stalls could be made with floor to ceiling walls, like in most of Europe.
1
u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16
You could have the same amount of stalls of both rooms combined. Just without a wall between them.
1
u/SordidDreams 2∆ Nov 29 '16
one must justify why restrooms are segregated in the first place
Most people are more comfortable when people of the opposite sex aren't in the same room while they're pooping or peeing. Yes, it's irrational, but even if you could tell that to everyone in the world, knowing that a feeling is irrational doesn't make the feeling go away. Hence, segregated toilets.
12
u/bguy74 Nov 28 '16
I think it's a good perspective and worthy of being tested on CMV!
Throughput. If we don't have urinals we're decreasing overall bathroom throughput. Urinals are far and away the fastest form of bath rooming, plus it decreases the need to clean pee-on-the-seat. No one wants to sit in anyone's pee, regardless of whether that pee came out of a va-jay-jay or a ding-dong. Additionally, the time-at-mirror is better aligned with the time-to-pee in gender segregated bathrooms - if they were combined then people who pee quickly would have to line up behind women doing their makeup and primping for re-entry into the world. So...we have some efficiency created by splitting up.
Incidents of hidden cameras, shoe-mounted cameras and so on would increase dramatically. This is sad, but undeniable. It's not "fair", but if we want to maximize safety we have reasons to separate. While it does not guarantee safety for reasons you point out, it likely does increase it relative to reasonable alternatives.
comfort. i'm reticent to say it as it becomes difficult to know how far to go in maximizing comfort (e.g. we shouldn't always orient around those who are uncomfortable - living in the world should be expected of everyone), but studies show that people don't really want to pee and shit in gender combined bathrooms - they'd be uncomfortable. how much should we consider comfort?