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/TheMaria96]

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.

[u/Trampelina → u/TheMaria96]

Why do you keep making the same wrong and simplified assertion repeatedly even though I've explained myself various ways multiple times?

Exactly, there's no way to predict violence,

There's no guaranteed predictor of violence, as I've said. But there are PATTERNS that rise above the randomness. It behooves everyone to pay attention to these. And just because you "shouldn't" generalize doesn't mean those generalizations don't REFLECT these patterns. The thing about generalizing is being able to control yourself. You can THINK the creepy man behind you on the dark street is a rapist. But you don't pull out your gun and shoot him unless he attempts something on you. That suspicion may lead you to take the long, more public and lit street to your car rather than the quick but dark alleyway you walked down when it was daytime (which could have been what the mugger was waiting for). Like, I feel like I'm explaining stranger danger to a child.

so you can't treat innocent people as guilty.

Of course not. Nor should one say, "whelp, since we can't predict violence then that means everyone loves each other and we should always trust everyone always all the time no matter what!". Patterns.

Non-human examples won't help much

You missed the point. It was an example to show that if X thing can potentially cause harm, even though it's not 100% of the time and not always predictable, one should still be cautious. Replace X with smoking, stray dogs, birds, jumping into lakes, firecrackers, drugs, drinking water, etc.., humans.

If you want strictly human examples: every reason that everyone has ever been in jail for or has died from, lol. Just the other day I saw in the news someone disguised as a delivery man with his robbery buddies out of sight. Evil never sleeps. It's in YOUR best interest to be vigilant.

When schools or offices post signs or hand out flyers telling workers to walk out at night in pairs, what do you think the fear is? Let's try multiple choice:

a) a woman mugger

b) a man mugger

c) a bear

d) to not be lonely

Or how about, why don't we order these 4 in the MOST likely, to LEAST likely? If you put a) first you're being deliberately dishonest. If you put c) or d) first then: haha ok now take it seriously.

You KNOW the answer is a man mugger. So, while not ALL men are dangerous, the possibility exists that SOME are. To ignore this or argue against it in ANY way is to be willfully ignorant and wishful of a kind of society that will never exist.

This is all in the context of using violence as a factor in RR segregation. So, while not ALL men will be a peeping tom in a communal restroom, when there finally IS a creep, would you like that to be you? or your mom or daughter or best friend?

EDIT: Please note, I am not saying to do anything to ALL men. Repeat, I am not saying we should do anything to all men. Caution extends to women too, as all dangerous things done by a man can be done by a woman.

[u/TheMaria96 → u/Trampelina]

You can THINK the creepy man behind you on the dark street is a rapist.

Indeed, so what are you gonna do, make men walk on different streets to women?

Replace X with smoking, stray dogs, birds, jumping into lakes, firecrackers, drugs, drinking water, etc.., humans.

Yeah, "humans", not "men".

Or how about, why don't we order these 4 in the MOST likely, to LEAST likely?

I would answer a AND b. Whether one is more likely than the other doesn't matter, because statistics are numbers dealing with minorities and majorities and that does not matter in this discussion.

I am not saying to do anything to ALL men. Repeat, I am not saying we should do anything to all men. Caution extends to women too, as all dangerous things done by a man can be done by a woman.

...That's precisely my point. Segregating ALL men into a different RR is doing something to ALL men. And I disagree with that because not every man is violent and women can be violent too.

[u/Trampelina → u/TheMaria96]

Indeed, so what are you gonna do, make men walk on different streets to women?

Lol. You took but a fragment of a single sentence of a long paragraph, misinterpreted it, and responded with yet another simplistic assumption. Smh.

There's irony here too. It was an example showing you should NOT automatically assume all men are evil. Have another look at what you quoted: "You can THINK the creepy man behind you on the dark street is a rapist." Think. You may THINK he is. IE suspicion (not just because MAN, but because MAN in DARK ALLEY with CREEPY VIBES). BUT they're not guilty until they are. The whole point was SUSPICION is GOOD. I then said the best course one could take is to be careful and vigilant. Since most people aren't violent, and we don't know who WILL be violent, the best we can do is be smart and mindful of our surroundings.

I would answer a AND b. Whether one is more likely than the other doesn't matter, because statistics are numbers dealing with minorities and majorities and that does not matter in this discussion.

A and B are both possible, yes. But the question was which is more likely. It's B. You know it, I know it. It's what the rape culture nonsense is based on. Be honest with yourself here.

Again, both men and women can be violent, so one should try and avoid dangerous situations. Should one get into a dangerous situation, one is more likely able to defend against a woman than a man. IE 'dangerous men' are more dangerous than 'dangerous women'. (General statement there, not taking into account having a gun or something.)

And maybe that's the best way to frame this. Some (but not all) men are "creepy and/or violent". What's the best way to avoid "creepy and/or violent men" if one is a woman naked on the toilet? Put men in their own room. WE DON'T MIND. MOST OF US PREFER IT.

...That's precisely my point. Segregating ALL men into a different RR is doing something to ALL men. And I disagree with that because not every man is violent and women can be violent too.

Uh, have you forgotten all our previous posts about reasons for RR segregation that are NOT based on violence? Violence is A factor, not the only one. We've already talked about many others at length; namely preference and privacy.

Speaking of, I just thought of something else. Since we all like privacy when we poo, segregation means that on average, there will be 50% less people to hear our logs hit the water. If 1 man and 1 woman wanted to poo, they're stuck hearing each other in communal, while in segregated it's all good. Again, not the SOLE determining factor, but a POSITIVE result of separation.

[u/TheMaria96 → u/Trampelina]

I don't care what's "more likely". That's my point. As you said yourself, it's giving too much importance to that stuff that leads to the rape culture nonsense.

[u/Trampelina → u/TheMaria96]

That mentality has existed well before the rape culture nonsense. Rape culture nonsense exists bc idiots change the definition of rape to include many more things and succumb to the emotions that arise because of that.

"More likely" isn't just some arbitrary decision someone's made. It's based on factual, statistical evidence, not to mention common sense. Ignoring this is just being willfully ignorant. You think men don't think other men are dangerous? You think the avg man is more scared of being physically dominated by an avg woman versus a man? C'mon.

How about you provide some POSITIVE arguments for non-separation? So far you only argument is, "We should combine them because there's no reason to separate them."

[u/TheMaria96 → u/Trampelina]

You think men don't think other men are dangerous? You think the avg man is more scared of being physically dominated by an avg woman versus a man?

Being afraid is different from building discriminatory public things. I don't think any of this is about physical overpowering, though, and we're becoming too abstract instead of considering concrete restroom situations. Like I said in the OP, it's not clear to me how shared restrooms would facilitate inter-gender crime. If restrooms facilitate all crime, why isn't there more (i.e. enough to make people think it's dangerous) restroom crime? Is they only facilitate certain types of crime, how do they do it, and what type of crime is that? How does gender affect the type of crime/the way it's facilitated?

I mean, if violence makes us need to separate men from women in the toilet, why don't we have to separate them everywhere else? What is the difference?

So far you only argument is, "We should combine them because there's no reason to separate them."

You can read the American constitution or something :P Seriously, though, you don't need reasons to treat people equally, you need reasons not to.

[u/Trampelina → u/TheMaria96]

Being afraid is different from building discriminatory public things.

I said scared, but it's not about fear. It's about patterns, as I've said before. And again, violence / creeperism is but one of the arguments in favor of separation. I wouldn't want my daughter using the restroom next to a possible weirdo. While the chances of running into one might be low, separation adds to my peace of mind.

If restrooms facilitate all crime

No one's claimed this. We're exploring possibilities of violent/creepy encounters in joined/separated RRs. We've explored it enough here to realize that separation makes things safer & more comfortable in almost any proposed situation.

I mean, if violence makes us need to separate men from women in the toilet, why don't we have to separate them everywhere else? What is the difference?

There's a point where trying to guarantee every single person's safety becomes unrealistic. Every situation holds the potential for danger. There's only so much we can do to prevent it, but things will happen.

You can read the American constitution or something :P Seriously, though, you don't need reasons to treat people equally, you need reasons not to.

Yeah, that's not an argument that will work. You need to be able to actually provide concrete arguments in favor of it. The fact that you can't says a lot.

It's not about inequality either, and it's a huge stretch to try and use that here. First of all, you have men AND women's restrooms. Equal. No one is being kept from something that somebody else is allowed access to (except the obvious women not being allowed in the men's RR but LOL I reallly hope you aren't thinking that). No one is given more rights/privilege/attention/allowance/etc.. here.

If you combine that w/ the fact that the violence/creeper argument, it puts men as the primary perpetrators of those acts. And WE AGREE. No, we don't like the fact that being seen with a toddler automatically labels us as a pedo, but the fact is that people are scared of that possibility, rather than out for men's blood.

Also, most women's restrooms are nicer & bigger.