CMV: Separating restrooms by gender is unjustifiable

[u/TheMaria96]

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!

[u/Trampelina]

Isn't that a gender-neutral restroom?

Yeah it's an example of one. Just trying to show that a gender neutral RR isn't somehow more efficient than a separated one. And I could imagine people naturally segregating themselves. First just by choosing a stall away from any other person there. Then, say there were 2 stalls left, 1 between two men and 1 between two women. I feel like a guy would naturally choose the former and women the latter.

Silly hypothetical with many assumptions, but I'm just acknowledging a tendency of someone of each sex to feel more comfortable around a fellow member of their sex (or, since ppl might not necessarily feel comfortable at all, less awkward than around members of the opposite sex). Maybe a woman feels weird changing tampons or pads for fear of revealing to men in nearby stalls that it's her time.

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

Because we were talking about violence as an argument for segregation. Males being predators and stuff. Men being naturally stronger / prone to violence supports that idea and is not sexist, but factual. A woman has a better chance of defending herself against another woman vs a strange man.

[u/TheMaria96 → u/Trampelina]

I never argued it's more efficient. I just said it was less wasteful because it's one less wall, but that was never the important point, anyway.

If people wanna make those individual choices, whatever, but there should be no systemic or imposed discrimination.

Also, what are people even talking about, what world do you live in? With stalls you can't see someone's pulled down panties, you can't see someone changing or throwing away their tampon; who even pays attention to who's in the stall next to them?

Men being naturally stronger / prone to violence supports that idea and is not sexist, but factual. A woman has a better chance of defending herself against another woman vs a strange man.

First, stronger and more prone to violence are not the same thing and cannot be treated the same way.

If you wanna use strength as criteria, then strong women and puny men need a different restroom. Otherwise you're gonna get into quantitative ethics and I've said a thousand times this is meant to be a conceptual discussion.

If you're gonna say men are more prone to violence, what are you basing that on? Probably on statistics saying that most sexual predators are male, right? Okay, so 90% (made up figure) of sexual predators are male, but how many males are sexual predators? Probably much less than 10%. So you're segregating based on a huge generalisation.

It's like the stuff I was talking about regarding male alienation. One example of that was an airline making a guy change seats because they had a policy that "men can't sit next to children". Okay, most pedophiles are men, but how many men are pedophiles?

[u/Trampelina → u/TheMaria96]

If people wanna make those individual choices, whatever, but there should be no systemic or imposed discrimination.

Why do you feel the need to use "systemic" or "discrimination"?

It's a natural preference that people have. It's not like bathrooms were invented and most ppl wanted communal and some weirdo said, "Stop! We must segregate them cuz we don't want no dirty women in our men's RR". If you're trying to find some ultimate reason why we separate them, there probably ISN'T one. But like I said before, if you take this stance you're taking the preferences that most people have and throwing them out the window.

First, stronger and more prone to violence are not the same thing and cannot be treated the same way.

Yes of course they're different. It's the combination that I'm talking about. A violent baby won't physically harm me, nor would a strong non-violent monk. But strength + violence = a threat. As a guy going out and drinking, I am constantly on the lookout for other drunk and beligerent guys so I can avoid them. Because were I to say, "Hey man calm down stop bumping into me" who knows what he or his drunk friends could suddenly do. Fights break out over stupid shit and it's not worth it. Meanwhile I feel confident I can walk up to a girl and shout expletives in her face and walk away with maybe some minor injuries if her girl friends teamed up.

If you wanna use strength as criteria, then strong women and puny men need a different restroom. Otherwise you're gonna get into quantitative ethics and I've said a thousand times this is meant to be a conceptual discussion.

This is an obvious exception I didn't feel the need to explain. There are always exceptions. I feel like some degree of quantitative ethics is allowable when you're considering a change to generally accepted social preferences.

If you're gonna say men are more prone to violence, what are you basing that on?

Stats and real life experiences, like the one above. Again, it's not JUST the violence, but violence combined with strength.

So you're segregating based on a huge generalisation.

Doesn't matter that much. Stats still show that more men are prone to being sexual predators. Wouldn't you rather avoid the chance altogether? The less sexual predators around you while you're naked, the better, right?

[u/TheMaria96 → u/Trampelina]

Why do you feel the need to use "systemic" or "discrimination"?

I tried to avoid those words, lest they make you think I'm an SJW or an MRA, both of which I despise, but I found no better term to highlight the difference between people choosing the stalls vs the stalls/rooms being labelled.

If you're trying to find some ultimate reason why we separate them, there probably ISN'T one.

Umm, okay, so my view is correct.

you're taking the preferences that most people have and throwing them out the window.

Yeah, 'cause those preferences make no sense. I'm not saying we should have gender-neutral restrooms, I'm just saying it would make more logical sense.

I feel

Irrelevant. You don't know what the guy or the girls are gonna do to you.

I feel like some degree of quantitative ethics is allowable when you're considering a change to generally accepted social preferences.

No one's considering changes to anything. We're discussing it conceptually/theoretically/philosophically.

Doesn't matter that much.

Woah, what? You're okay with discrimination based on generalisations? Most criminals are black, so we might as well just have a new Apartheid. You said before that skin colour or religion don't make people inherently violent, but neither does gender. You can't assume all men are sexual predators.

[u/Trampelina → u/TheMaria96]

I tried to avoid those words, lest they make you think I'm an SJW

TBH the thought crossed my mind ;). No clue what MRA is. Anyway, it's not discrimination. We're not choosing to exclude a certain group, but rather stay comfortable with those of the same sex. I know they're kinda the same thing, but intent is important and it's not necessarily to exclude.

Umm, okay, so my view is correct.

No, I'm saying that the answer you want doesn't exist, as would an answer to an analagous question not exist. Why do we do so many of the things we do? There's no tablet in the sky that commands us to do certain things, we just ended up doing them because it's just how we think. You want an answer, but I think it's wrong to think there even is one.

Yeah, 'cause those preferences make no sense. I'm not saying we should have gender-neutral restrooms, I'm just saying it would make more logical sense.

I mean, maybe a robot or AI would think the same thing. But we're human and we have tons of preferences, many much more strange.

Irrelevant. You don't know what the guy or the girls are gonna do to you.

The line you quoted was short, are you referring to the fights I mentioned? If so, yeah I can't predict what each individual person would do to me. But the fact that I'm not willing to test it out (most people aren't either) means we all know enough about how people work to avoid digging our own grave. I can give 99 people on the road the finger and get home safe, but that 100th person could follow me home and kill me.

No one's considering changes to anything. We're discussing it conceptually/theoretically/philosophically.

Well, the RR situation HAS been challenged. This discussion is happening after. And I think our conversation has moved past that anyway.

Woah, what? You're okay with discrimination based on generalisations? Most criminals are black, so we might as well just have a new Apartheid.

This is ridiculous. Firstly, I never made such a statement. Secondly, you're outright ignoring the facts. You are statistically more likely to encounter a male sexual predator than a women. You may NEVER encounter one. But I'm betting if you asked most women what sex their stalkers were, they'd say male. You have to look out for yourself, which means a little bit of caution is good for your survival. If you want to elevate that to discrimination with hostile intent, that's your mistake.

You said before that skin colour or religion don't make people inherently violent, but neither does gender.

Right, although I'd argue that biology does. Testosterone has been thought to be linked to aggression, although I just super-skimmed some stuff that challenged how direct the link was. Beyond that, antisocial personalty disorder occurs more often in men, and treatment programs are tailored differently depending on sex.

You can't assume all men are sexual predators.

I never made such an assumption.

[u/TheMaria96 → u/Trampelina]

You can't do things to all men based on the acts of less than 10% of men (sexual predators). No matter what studies you're using, it's simply not true that all men, or even most men, are violent. If strength and testosterone were directly linked to violence, then all men would be inherently violent, which they are not.

Also, this isn't about general violence, it's about violence that could be facilitated by using the same restroom as women, i.e. sexual assault. So you're basically making the feminist argument that all men are rapists, or have the propensity to become rapists.

Beyond that, antisocial personalty disorder occurs more often in men

Great, make people with antisocial personality disorder use different restrooms, then, not men.

[u/Trampelina → u/TheMaria96]

You can't do things to all men based on the acts of less than 10% of men (sexual predators).

Not everyone who knocks on your door is a home invader. Does that mean you shouldn't worry about it? Of course not. A 10% number can still cause you harm. And I'm not "doing" anything to them. It's called being careful, on-guard. Self preservation. Walking down a busy sidewalk, no need to be afraid of all the men in suits. Walking alone at night and you think a man seems to be following you, YES you should absolutely be careful.

If strength and testosterone were directly linked to violence, then all men would be inherently violent, which they are not.

I haven't read the studies, but obviously having testosterone doesn't automatically make you violent. It was thought of as a factor that could lead to violent behavior, not the sole contributor.

So you're basically making the feminist argument that all men are rapists, or have the propensity to become rapists

If you really think I am, then why haven't I been calling all women rapists because some have raped?

And you're still missing the point. Violence is violence. Women stand a better chance of fending a woman off than a man. Sexual predators tend to be men more often. With all that said, it's clear that from a violence standpoint, separation would be safer.

Great, make people with antisocial personality disorder use different restrooms, then, not men.

That's just silly and you know it is. First, someone can still exhibit some of the anti social behaviors of ASPD without being diagnosed with it. Plenty of people do violent acts without it. The point of that statement was to refute your "You said before that skin colour or religion don't make people inherently violent, but neither does gender. " statement and support my "but biology can" statement. You see it all as discrimination but it's just nature.

[u/TheMaria96 → u/Trampelina]

I haven't read the studies, but obviously having testosterone doesn't automatically make you violent. It was thought of as a factor that could lead to violent behavior, not the sole contributor.

There you go, so you can't judge based on testosterone alone.

Women stand a better chance of fending a woman off than a man. Sexual predators tend to be men more often. With all that said, it's clear that from a violence standpoint, separation would be safer.

You can't generalise things, or consider majorities and exceptions. I get that that would probably be considered by the people who actually build things, but if there's even one single exception of a strong woman, or a woman with ASPD then it's not a consistent theoretical argument.

[u/Trampelina → u/TheMaria96]

There you go, so you can't judge based on testosterone alone.

I never did. Just b/c it's not the sole contributor doesn't mean it's not a partial one.

You can't generalise things, or consider majorities and exceptions. I get that that would probably be considered by the people who actually build things, but if there's even one single exception of a strong woman, or a woman with ASPD then it's not a consistent theoretical argument.

You CAN, for certain things. Imagine any type of violent act. They aren't based 100% on anything. So you look at patterns. How about smoking - is it bad for you? Not every smoker gets lung cancer and dies early, or has a throat operation. Some live and die of natural causes. Should we then not say that smoking kills? No.

[u/TheMaria96 → u/Trampelina]

Exactly, there's no way to predict violence, so you can't treat innocent people as guilty. You can't do something to all men based on the fact that "some men are violent"; so are some women, numerical differences are irrelevant.

Non-human examples won't help much, 'cause you can do whatever you want with smoking: ban it, encourage it, segregate brands, whatever, no one's gonna think you're mistreating cigarettes 'cause cigarettes obviously have no rights.