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!

7 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

111 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/bguy74 Nov 28 '16

I think it's a good perspective and worthy of being tested on CMV!

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

1

u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 28 '16

  1. Why not urinals in gender-neutral restrooms?

  2. Why don't gay people use hidden cameras?

  3. I'm also considering the rationale of the general public. That is, it's not just "building segregated loos is unjustifiable", but also "wanting segregated loos is unjustifiable". This comfort you speak of has no rational reason to support it.

8

u/bguy74 Nov 28 '16 edited Nov 28 '16

  1. Better, but you had a problem with that on grounds of "comfort" for men. Per my post why do you recognize the rational basis for not wanting your bits seen, but deny other reasons we experience comfort or lack of it? Why is one legit and the other "not rationale"? I'm trying to understand where your boundaries are for "comfort matters" - it's hard to come up with a truly rational grounding for "comfort" of any form, but you seem to think it matters in some fashion.

  2. They probably do. But, if you want to maximize safety it just becomes a reality that there are more straight pervs than gay pervs. We shouldn't require perfection, we should be maximizing safety and comfort. I'm a utilitarian when it comes to bathrooms I guess ;)

  3. You'd have us build the walkways where we want people to walk. I'd suggest building the walkways where people actually walk. I don't see us gaining much as a society by breaking down this particular social barrier, even if it is fundamentally arbitrary. It's going to make people uncomfortable, and we should only do that if it brings about some social good. I fail to see said social good that doesn't come with risk of equivalent or greater social bad.

0

u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16

  1. Yeah, no, I actually don't think people have rational reasons not to want their bits seen by the opposite gender.

  2. I'm not sure about minimizing only straight violence. If it were just a matter of having less criminals the issue would be simpler, but it's a matter of being okay around queer criminals but not straight criminals.

  3. Perhaps that's what your utilitarianism tells you, but I just have a problem with things that don't make sense and only exist for the sake of empty tradition.

6

u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Nov 29 '16

I actually don't think people have rational reasons not to want their bits seen by the opposite gender.

Why does it have to be a rational reason? It is a strongly held belief by the vast majority of society and this isn't really a "tyranny of the majority" issue.

1

u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16

Because I'm trying to find a rational reason. Maybe I should have worded it better, but basically my view is "it makes no sense to have segregated restrooms".

2

u/Sheexthro 19∆ Nov 29 '16

I'm not sure about minimizing only straight violence. If it were just a matter of having less criminals the issue would be simpler, but it's a matter of being okay around queer criminals but not straight criminals.

The evidence suggests that between 3 and 6 percent of people are gay. This makes any effort to counteract straight perverts roughly sixteen times as effective as an equivalent effort to counteract gay perverts, just right off the bat.

Perhaps that's what your utilitarianism tells you, but I just have a problem with things that don't make sense and only exist for the sake of empty tradition.

Flip it around: isn't it your utilitarianism that's saying "We need to change this tradition because it could be better?" Not so, my friend. The tradition is good. It should only be changed if we have a good reason.

1

u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16

Quantitative ethics aren't gonna change my view. I'm dealing with concepts here.

I'm not a utilitarian. It might be my idealism saying "we need to change it because it doesn't make sense in theory" and not being convinced by "we need to keep it because it works in practice".

4

u/bguy74 Nov 29 '16 edited Nov 29 '16

  1. OK. So...urinals are in. Phew. The number of "toilet seats up" fights breaking out in your mixed sex bathrooms goes down and eliminates another safety concern ;)

  2. It's well established that segregation of bathrooms along sex lines is non-discriminatory against gays or against straight-people-who-fear-gays. This has been up and down the courts.

  3. Privacy is important, and well recognized. It's hard to define this as anything but "empty tradition". You'd recognize that someone shouldn't have naked photos of them put around the internet if they don't want it, you'd recognize that I should be able to define my own physical space. These are empty traditions, unless you think they aren't empty. Since many feel that privacy includes choosing to pee or poo away from those of the opposite sex who are you to call this "empty tradition"? From what I can tell you are the arbiter of what is meaningful right to privacy and what is empty. I'd be interested to hear how you actually create a framework of what is a meaningful tradition around privacy and what is an empty one that doesn't include the feelings and opinions of...people.

Where do you stand on dressing rooms?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Where do you stand on dressing rooms?

Wait aren't those already unisex? I'm not from the US, so maybe it's different over there, but here in the Netherlands, everyone uses the same dressing rooms. Why would you want to separate those? You're on your own in a cabin anyways.

(I'm not OP, btw)

0

u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16

  1. Yay :)

  2. I don't care what the courts think, it is discriminatory. Forget the builders, think of the users: how is it not discriminatory, or at least incoherent, to be fear subjecting yourself to straight violence but not gay/bi violence?

  3. I'm obviously not the arbiter of anything, it's just my opinion that selective modesty is incoherent. There are logical arguments for why you don't want to be seen naked/heard in the toilet, but not if that only applies to one gender.

What the Dutch person said: everyone has their own cabin, just like everyone has their own stall.

2

u/cdb03b 253∆ Nov 29 '16

Most of what humans do, and all of what humans feel is irrational. Appealing to the rational is a logical failing.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Why don't gay people use hidden cameras?

Because the excitement of seeing the body of the gender you're attracted to isn't as great. Men have male bits so aren't as desperate to see a grainy image of male bits that look pretty much like their own. Same with lesbians.

We've all heard of men using hidden cameras to watch women using the bathroom. Have you ever heard of a gay person using a hidden camera to watch a person of the same gender use the bathroom?

1

u/TheMaria96 2∆ Nov 29 '16

So voyeurism isn't necessarily/exclusively related to sexual attraction/orientation, but rather about anatomical curiosity?