If a business or company has a lot more male or female patrons, it makes total sense to have different sized restrooms, right? For example, strip clubs have a much smaller ladies room. Not because women who enjoy strip clubs aren’t welcome, but simply because it’s practical to split a given amount of bathroom space that way. People of…fluid…gender are under 1% of the population. So if anyone wants some real bathroom privacy, there should be some individual fully private bathrooms. We don’t have to shame people for being transgender, just acknowledge that some people don’t like sharing a bathroom (or like the reaction they get from the patrons of that bathroom)
Well, the main difference is that we don’t make our homes open to the public where strangers can waltz in and out as they please.
No they did not add a third unisex restroom. That spot always had two unisex restrooms. Each was labeled with a male and a female silhouette. All they did was replace the signs on just those two those restrooms (and not the designated men’s and women’s rooms) with signs that had three silhouettes. So again the question was did ADDING the sign send a message of inclusion here or exclusion from the men’s and women’s rooms.
I cannot see how it would be seen as exclusionary. But that’s IMO.
How does that make a difference in a single-occupancy bathroom?
The whole point of having sex segregated public restrooms was for alleviating any fears about safety issues on behalf of women, no? That’s not going to be an issue with a coed bathroom in a private residence.
IMO, a restroom should be functional, clean and this is very important, have urinals. Why it needs to be labelled one way or the other is beyond me. I presume Trans-Genders use the bathroom for the same purpose as men/women do?
No.
In fact the entire point of the quote you were responding to is that I don’t see any point at all in having gender distinct single-occupancy public bathrooms.
My un-sourced, un-researched pet theory is that bathrooms became sexualized by the fact that it’s a place where youngsters can have privacy enough to masturbate.
So instead of simply being a pee and poop depository, it’s also a “fantasy sex” place.
It seems to have been more of a natural outgrowth of 19th-century tendencies to separate the sexes in public accommodations in general:
Because, as is customary in society, each gender uses a separate restroom. Of course, you knew that.
I won’t insult you by assuming your argument, but it is fair to say that you believe that restrooms should no longer be segregated by gender. Why? What greater good would be served by changing to gender-neutral restrooms.
It eliminates the trans panic concept as a possibility. It helps to remove the gender binary from the public sphere. It reduces any possible “separate but equal” disparity. It allows for better utilization of facilities, making sure that all available stalls are available to all, not creating artificial scarcity.
That’s just off the top of my head. That doesn’t mean I am sure it’s worth it, but the advantages seem fairly obvious. The disadvantages are largely inertial: this is the way it currently is, and it would take more work to change it. And people would have to get used to it. I can’t think of any disadvantages that aren’t “the cost of change.”
I just checked every restroom in my house, and they’re all uni-gender. I am not aware of any crisis resulting from it. Is your house different, or do you have a single-sex household?
Should middle and high schools have non gendered restrooms? I personally think it would not be good at all. You would have to have restroom attendants in all the restrooms. All the restrooms would have to be rebuilt into actually private stalls, closed at the top and bottom with more than a token door.
Let me address all of those:
-
Trans Panic–not an issue until 2015. Such a small percentage of the population is hardly a reason to change decades of societal norms
-
Removing gender binary—why is this needed? We are, or at least have been, gender binary
-
“Separate but equal”–is there invidious discrimination because of separate restrooms? Are the facilities inferior or does using one or the other impose a badge of inferiority on the other gender?
-
Utilization of facilities—a men’s room does that by having urinals. I know of no legislation that any person can pass that can obliterate the fact that a man can piss in a urinal and then move on. Women cannot do that. There is a very rational reason to have these separate rooms for that reason.
Your objections are strawmen.
Our household restrooms do not usually: 1) have several people using it at the same time, 2) have need for a mass number of people to move in, use it, and then get out. #2 is why I don’t have urinal troughs in my restroom.
Public and private restrooms have so many differences that it would be silly to draft a bunch of paragraphs to explain why.
Maybe it’s just all fashion choices being respected?
Few public restrooms have this requirement, if you sit down and look at it.
Urinal troughs are your argument? Puh-leeze. Social conditioning is the only reason you think it’s normal that two men should stand next to each other, whip out their wangs, urinate together, and that this is somehow way less gay than having a gender-neutral bathroom. Really, how many venues have a need to ensure that men pee like cattle while staring at each other’s genitals?
I admit, like you I believed the gender-neutral bathroom thing was a big flapdoodle about nothing. Then I had kids, and suddenly I was very happy to see bathroom options where I didn’t have to worry about somebody seeing the wrong pee-pee.
Seriously? I’m pretty sure I can pee into a toilet as easy as a urinal.
Braggadocio does not become you.
You can fit more urinals into the same space than toilets. Now, perhaps it would be more efficient to have more toilets than they currently do, because I rarely see urinals being completely used, unlike toilets, but space-wise, you can fit more fixtures into the same space with urinals.