LGBTAitp - Part Thirteen

[Asta Kask]

Except that, y'know, this doesn't happen that way. The previous time this topic came up, it was clearly shown that many people place their own social comfort over other's basic needs, and are completely fine with enforcing a convention based on convenience over the fundamental rights of the unfortunate who are left over by said convention.

You mean that gender-neutral bathrooms are now a fundamental human right?

[Serpentine]

My college had unisex bathrooms. Yes, happyfuntime activities went on. Noone really cared, though. I'm not aware of there being any problems with it being shared. The urinal issue was averted - it didn't have urinals.

[Murdim]

You mean that gender-neutral bathrooms are now a fundamental human right?

Having somewhere to relieve oneself in dignity is a fundamental human right. It does mean that strictly segregated bathrooms do infringe on transpeople's fundamental human rights. It doesn't mean that all forms of separation are automatically wrong.

Most people are more comfortable with segregated bathrooms, fine. But if (and only if) it means that some people have to refrain themselves, pee in a corner, or face the righteous wrath of the correctly-gendered... there's some seriously screwed-up priorities going on here.

[Asta Kask]

I used to be claustrophobic, and that made going to bathroom in unfamiliar places... interesting (I was used to my own bathroom). Could I have demanded that all the toilet stalls be quadrupled in size? I mean, the lifetime prevalence of claustrophobia is 4% which is more than the prevalence of transsexuality* so 'we' would seem to have a better case in utilitarian terms.

On the other hand, if we say that all people have a fundamental right to go to the bathroom in public places without being inconvenienced, then we'll need to remake the bathrooms quite a bit. There are still people who use Iron Lungs. And if we talk about basic human rights, then money is no object - which is why we should be careful about speaking in such terms.

I have heard that unisexual bathrooms make some women uncomfortable. But present me with a well-performed study showing that this is wrong and I'll support this for public buildings.

*I found figures as high as 1:300, but that's still a far cry from 4%.

[Serpentine]

You could use the disabled bathroom. They're always bigger.

Some people are made uncomfortable by a lot of things. That's no argument for or against anything.

[Asta Kask]

Some people are made uncomfortable by a lot of things. That's no argument for or against anything.

So the fact that transsexuals are uncomfortable going to a sexed bathroom is neither here nor there? Then why are we arguing?

[Murdim]

*snip*

... you do realise that there's a difference between not being comfortable in a bathroom, and not being allowed in it ?

I have heard that unisexual bathrooms make some women uncomfortable. But present me with a well-performed study showing that this is wrong and I'll support this for public buildings.

Having somewhere to relieve oneself in dignity is a fundamental human right. It does mean that strictly segregated bathrooms do infringe on transpeople's fundamental human rights. It doesn't mean that all forms of separation are automatically wrong.

Most people are more comfortable with segregated bathrooms, fine. But if (and only if) it means that some people have to refrain themselves, pee in a corner, or face the righteous wrath of the correctly-gendered... there's some seriously screwed-up priorities going on here.

[Asta Kask]

Having somewhere to relieve oneself in dignity is a fundamental human right. It does mean that strictly segregated bathrooms do infringe on transpeople's fundamental human rights. It doesn't mean that all forms of separation are automatically wrong.

Ok, I'll just say that we disagree. It is not a fundamental human right because it potentially interferes with other peoples' human rights and that leads to insoluble problems.

It has nothing to do with transpeople, this is a disagreement about the basics of political philosophy. As such it is not suitable for this forum.

[Serpentine]

So the fact that transsexuals are uncomfortable going to a sexed bathroom is neither here nor there? Then why are we arguing?

More or less. What is significant is that segregated bathrooms make things awkward and uncomfortable for both transexuals and non-transexuals - whichever sexed bathroom a transexual chooses to use, someone is going to be uncomfortable, unless they're exceptionally good at passing. And then, you know, there's all the various other arguments for unisex/against segregated bathrooms.
So yeah, the fact that transexuals are uncomfortable is just as insignificant as the fact that some women are uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms. There are other reasons to support them.

[Murdim]

Ok, I'll just say that we disagree. It is not a fundamental human right because it potentially interferes with other peoples' human rights and that leads to insoluble problems.

It has nothing to do with transpeople, this is a disagreement about the basics of political philosophy. As such it is not suitable for this forum.

... ooookay, but that still doesn't explain why you make me say things that I didn't say. Irreconcilible philosophical disagreement is one thing, but as far as I'm concerned, our discussion feels more like a non sequitur created by poor communication.

Also, I'm curious to know where you expect transpeople to do you-know-what. If it's "in either gender's bathroom", then we do not disagree nearly as much as you think we are.

[Mina Kobold]

What do you mean supposed to work? You've never heard of countries that don't have unisex restrooms before?

Oh, sorry. I meant 'supposed to work' in regard to logic and not how it could be done. Sorry. ^_^'

Segregation is probably encouraged in bathrooms so they aren't used for purposes other then their intended one, more then they already are. After all a unisex bathroom will quite frankly, probably have more people making out and having sex in it then the existing segregated bathroom system.

(Primarily because a large majority of the world is straight. )

They'll do that in every bathroom that's not supervised, and pee in the sink for that matter. Public bathrooms are squicky. >_<

Not that I see what's wrong with making out, couples do it all the time in the hallways and nobody's complained so far.

Sex is inherently wrong, though, I can totally prove it. >_>

I can see how that isn't the best argument in the world, but it does matter. Additionally a second reason for segregation of men and women's wash-rooms is to help prevent children from seeing too much of the opposite gender without clothing. Another initiative I am not really against.

Walking into a washroom with a row of urinals as a kid could be a pretty traumatizing experience >.>... Add to that, that since there are urinals it isn't a completely artificial divide as men can go differently. It also means women don't have to walk into a room full of men holding their peni (plural yo!)

That only works if the child can go to the bathroom themselves or has a parent of the same gender, otherwise they can only go to the opposite gendered bathroom with their parent.

But more to the point, why would men neccesarily feel any better about walking in to that? I certainly don't and I presume most of the homophobic straight guys in my class don't like it either.

I say we ban urinals and just put ludicrous specifiers on the stalls about favourite colour, day of the month and choice of headgear.

[celtois]

So yeah, the fact that transexuals are uncomfortable is just as insignificant as the fact that some women are uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms. There are other reasons to support them.

What other reasons, we seem to have spent most of this conversation on the issue of the rights of the cis-gendered. Which you have practically just discarded.

I am pro unisex bathrooms, and pro not dividing by gender when it comes to rooming together on field trips or whatever. I think the only problem time for that is in the experimental teen stage, but there's such a thing as walking out of the girl's room and into the boy's room. If they want to mess around, they will.

My concern would be the fact that even with segregated bathrooms it's a place where particularly women are targeted for sexual assault. I'd be worried about it being easier for the attackers, in the particular case of a man attacking a woman.

Two points here:

The first. It makes is way more likely they will mess around during the experimental stage, if you allow them to bunk together. I know from experience that not allowing boys and girls to enter one another segregated rooms at that age helps prevent anything from going on, during a well supervised field trip, or summer camp. It doesn't always work but it will help cut down on it. Also it prevents most sorts of sexual abuse either person might have to suffer in their own room.

Second: Exactly! That was the point I was inching towards with the sex talk. But I never really got there. The advantage with the ladies and gents bathroom is if someone of the opposite sex comes in you are instantly on guard against them trying something. While if a sexual predator comes into a unisex bathroom you are more likely not be prepared for them until it is too late.

The safety of people in this manner might just be more important then any other issue brought up so far.

(Also part of the reason I'm against sex in public places is like Keavak I find it really gross. It doesn't seem too much to ask that we try and encourage people to do it in private and segregated washrooms can help with that. Also on making out, I can live with it heck I don't really care . But the problem with people who make out in washrooms is they tend to go a bit far with wandering hands and stuff....to the point were it does become pretty not suitable for the public;. )

[Serpentine]

Well, off the top of my head, there's the fact that split bathrooms causes confusion and complication in the case of non sex-binary people - not just transexuals but the intersexed and the like too. No, that's not the same as "it makes some people uncomfortable" - it would be functionally simpler.
There's also the lack, in my view, of a need for segregated bathrooms. As I said, the one at my college worked fine. The need to protect women is a possibility, but one I think would require more information to determine whether this is a real issue or just a perceived one.
I'm sure others could think of more. I don't actually necessarily think all bathrooms should be unisex, by the way. It just doesn't make a difference to me if they are.

[Mina Kobold]

The first. It makes is way more likely they will mess around during the experimental stage, if you allow them to bunk together. I know from experience that not allowing boys and girls to enter one another segregated rooms at that age helps prevent anything from going on, during a well supervised field trip, or summer camp. It doesn't always work but it will help cut down on it. Also it prevents most sorts of sexual abuse either person might have to suffer in their own room.

Isn't that like enforcing total abstinence? The teenagers will do what they want anyway and just telling them no will not convince them of anything at all. I think. Maybe.

Anyway, have anyone ever heard of teenagers actually doing anything like that on a trip? Certainly haven't myself and the aforementioned trip had only rules against alcohol and two teachers that went to sleep five hours or so before everybody else.

We played Spin-the-Bottle and table-football for those five hours. Sixty teenagers unsupervised for hours and the most exiting that happened was people discussing the spooky treasure hunt.

Second: Exactly! That was the point I was inching towards with the sex talk. But I never really got there. The advantage with the ladies and gents bathroom is if someone of the opposite sex comes in you are instantly on guard against them trying something. While if a sexual predator comes into a unisex bathroom you are more likely not be prepared for them until it is too late.

What if the attacker isn't straight? o_O

For that matter, wouldn't there be a higher chance of people being around to help if more people were allowed in there? I assume the reason peoplke fear this in bathrooms particularly is that it's more deserted but that just mean we need better security or everybody should go in groups. ^_^

[unosarta]

I was at the dentist today, and I saw a sign that said, specifically "Unisex Bathroom," and was conveniently placed away from prying eyes. It was pretty cool.

[Asta Kask]

... ooookay, but that still doesn't explain why you make me say things that I didn't say. Irreconcilible philosophical disagreement is one thing, but as far as I'm concerned, our discussion feels more like a non sequitur created by poor communication.

Also, I'm curious to know where you expect transpeople to do you-know-what. If it's "in either gender's bathroom", then we do not disagree nearly as much as you think we are.

You posted your answer while I was writing an answer to serp and to clarify my position. Hence the crossed wires.

As for your question - as I said, there should be unisex bathrooms in official buildings (courtrooms, police departments, etc.). In private places, the policy should be whatever the owner prefers - whether this be sorting by plumbing, by clothing or by saying no T's allowed. And the right to discriminate against a group applies to all groups, not specifically T's.

[drewski~]

My school just got a GSA last Friday, which I was super excited to join, and yesterday we did the Day of Silence which was awesome. Afterwards we had a Break the Silence meeting and it was pretty cool. The whole GSA thing is awesome since I'm in the South (US). We got a lot of people that tried to get us to talk which was major lamesauce, but kind of why we need the GSA there in the first place, if that makes sense.
Also, hello LGBT thread!

[Coidzor]

So teaching children that having mens and womens restrooms is discriminatory and wrong because it's inherently and always harmful to cis-boys and cis-girls to relieve themselves in different rooms is good and proper and logical because trans individuals are discriminated against.

That's... quite convoluted, I must admit.

What if the attacker isn't straight? o_O

You don't already know? That's pretty much never expected except in places like prison for various reasons.

And, y'know, a bisexual man would still raise flags in a women's restroom by that argument anyway. A gay man would for that matter, for whatever reason a gay man would be doing that.

[KenderWizard]

I think the original thing we were hoping to teach children is it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, and it was simplified into not segregating by gender. I think in this case, if I had a child to teach about this stuff, I'd say that it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, but that it's generally the case that there are boy's bathrooms and girl's bathrooms. You could say it's tradition, really. I imagine most people don't think about it, and if they're designing a shopping centre, they segregate bathrooms because that's how it's always been done.

I have been on group trips where some people got into trouble for girls going into the boy's room during the night, dunno how far anything went. I've also been on trips, both segregated and non-segregated where definitely some Stuff happened, but no one got into trouble (everyone involved was above age of consent by then). I think the only thing that'd actually stop that sort of stuff going on in the dorm room is the supervising adult sleeping in the same room as the supervisees. And I think a determined young couple would just find somewhere else.

[Mina Kobold]

So teaching children that having mens and womens restrooms is discriminatory and wrong because it's inherently and always harmful to cis-boys and cis-girls to relieve themselves in different rooms is good and proper and logical because trans individuals are discriminated against.

Who said it was harmful? It does mean you have to stop talking to people if they are of different gender than you and you are on your way to the bathroom, which is mean of the bathroom. Big meanie bathroom!

I just think it's really unnecesary since the only people who'd see you inside the stall is either creepy no matter what gender they are or was allowed in there by you so why is it so uncomfortable that the stalls are in the same room? I don't understand. Help! >_<

You don't already know? That's pretty much never expected except in places like prison for various reasons.

And, y'know, a bisexual man would still raise flags in a women's restroom by that argument anyway. A gay man would for that matter, for whatever reason a gay man would be doing that.

...No? Why would there exist no non-heteronormative sexual predators outside of prisons? That sounds a bit weird to me.

Yes he would, but if he was a sexual predator and went for a man he would raise no alarm since he's in the right bathroom and as such the logic that separating the genders somehow means all sexual predators will be alarming by being in the wrong bathroom sounds odd to me.

[Murdim]

You posted your answer while I was writing an answer to serp and to clarify my position. Hence the crossed wires.

As for your question - as I said, there should be unisex bathrooms in official buildings (courtrooms, police departments, etc.). In private places, the policy should be whatever the owner prefers - whether this be sorting by plumbing, by clothing or by saying no T's allowed. And the right to discriminate against a group applies to all groups, not specifically T's.

Okay. So you don't see any problem with transsexuals, or any other minority for that matter, having no access to a bathroom at all, just because the owner feels like discriminating against this group. This... isn't exactly something I could deduce from your previous posts. Nor is the fact that you support unisex bathrooms in public places - actually, it seemed like you were implying the opposite. Though that does explain why you said that we disagree about "the basics of political philosophy". Oh, well.

So teaching children that having mens and womens restrooms is discriminatory and wrong because it's inherently and always harmful to cis-boys and cis-girls to relieve themselves in different rooms is good and proper and logical because trans individuals are discriminated against.

That's... quite convoluted, I must admit.

That's very convoluted, but I don't think anyone here has ever said that.

[golentan]

I wish there was a non-awkward way to ask another guy if he's interested. As it is, I offered something as a sort of half joke. It got taken as a joke. I think.

[Asta Kask]

Okay. So you don't see any problem with transsexuals, or any other minority for that matter, having no access to a bathroom at all, just because the owner feels like discriminating against this group.

Not precisely. I would boycott a place that banned transexuals, and I would advice my friends and neighbors to do the same. I don't think it is the affair of the state to regulate this.

[Serpentine]

What if they said "no black people allowed"?
Anti-discrimination is definitely a state affair, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure how much else I more want the state to "regulate".

[Asta Kask]

What if they said "no black people allowed"?
Anti-discrimination is [Bdefinitely[/B] a state affair, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure how much else I more want the state to "regulate".

Then in this place, we have to disagree. I can't defend my position without going into the philosophy of rights, which is parth of political philosophy.

[Serpentine]

Awwwwwwww.

[KenderWizard]

^

That's adorable, good for them! I especially like that rainbow shirt.

[unosarta]

I wish there was a non-awkward way to ask another guy if he's interested. As it is, I offered something as a sort of half joke. It got taken as a joke. I think.

Seriously. I have been having this problem. Or, at least, even if not "interested", "interested in men".

[Coidzor]

Who said it was harmful?

Between the lesson that brought this up and everyone's responses to me like I should find it self evident or was a bad person for questioning the incompleteness of their approach or thinking that little kids wouldn't also probe out the full extent of whats implied by this kind of blanket lesson without synergy from other related lessons that mind the gaps, well, let's just say that the message was pretty clear just from the tone and atmosphere of the content.

Of course, no one stopped to question the wisdom of reinforcing weird=bad to these kids by using weird as their euphemism of choice for bad. Maybe I should've just nitpicked that instead.

That's very convoluted, but I don't think anyone here has ever said that.

That's the consensus that seems to have been reached in response to my initial critique of the lesson that brought up the discussion in the first place.

Edit: Y'know what, forget that other topic. All it does is leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[Murdim]

Not precisely. I would boycott a place that banned transexuals, and I would advice my friends and neighbors to do the same. I don't think it is the affair of the state to regulate this.

... looking back at it, this was pretty much a personal attack done for the sake of making your position look bad by association... an ad hominem argument, and a slanderous one with that. Geez, I feel even more horrible now.