I know you’ve said it. What I don’t get it why you care so much about transgender women (for instance) getting into the women’s room and away from men, and then turning around and saying it doesn’t matter if they go to the bathroom with men - unisex restrooms are fine with you.
What’s the point?
If we don’t need gendered restrooms, why care if transgender people use one or the other? Won’t they be just as vulnerable to harm in a unisex bathroom as a gendered one?
That doesn’t follow. Why can’t I just prefer not to pee with a female, regardless of gender? What if I don’t care about gender, only sex? It has nothing to do with transgender people or how I feel about them. (This is just speaking hypothetically for those not paying attention)
Because I have no expectation that gendered bathrooms will change. I think that’s what almost everyone wants, and I’m fine with it, and so I think the best real world way to help protect trans people is within this practice that isn’t changing soon.
And if I’m wrong, then I’m fine with that.
Then, in my mind, you’re bigoted due to either ignorance (not understanding gender) or callousness (having no regard for the feelings of trans people).
But I care about actions, not feelings, so if someone quietly has bigoted feelings but doesn’t act on them, then I have no beef with them.
No. If most people preferred unisex bathrooms, then the best real world solution would be protecting trans people in unisex bathrooms.
You might prefer not to pee next to certain skin tones, regardless of race, but it’s still bigoted. If unisex bathrooms were the norm, then maybe it would be bigoted to not want to pee next to the opposite sex or gender. But in present American society, gendered bathrooms are the norm, and in the context of our society and culture, such feelings with regards to gender are probably not bigoted.
And again, I’m not worried about bigoted feelings, only bigoted actions. I don’t care about feelings alone.
Why does protecting trans people require putting them in a different bathroom? Why, if we could do that anyway if they were in unisex bathrooms, can’t we do that now?
I’m not talking about their preferences here, of course - they may simply feel more comfortable in a room of their gender. Of course they do. I support that. But you’re talking about protecting them from harm.
So:
Prefer certain race = bigoted
Prefer certain sex = bigoted
Prefer certain gender = perfectly fine.
Why?
You’re above such a ridiculous circular argument. I could easily use the same argument to defend keeping trans people out of restrooms - or even, back the day, to defend Jim Crow. Come on, you can do better than this.
We certainly can. Why do you keep assuming I believe the opposite of what I say? I don’t care either way. I certainly won’t oppose society if most people decide unisex bathrooms are better.
I don’t think that’s likely, but it wouldn’t bother me at all if it occurs. It also wouldn’t bother me at all if it doesn’t. In my mind, society is no better or worse with unisex bathrooms vs gendered bathrooms, as long as trans people are protected.
It’s a good response, but gendered bathrooms are fundamentally different in that they don’t cause harm, which is why that argument doesn’t work for segregation.
But these are just feelings. I really don’t care about feelings, bigoted or not. I put about 2 seconds of thought into these feelings, because I care so little about them. I care about actions and harm, not about feelings. People can have as many bigoted feelings as they like as long as they don’t do any bigoted actions.
I don’t understand why you’re still trying, iiandyiiii. You’re just repeating yourself at this point. The guy cannot understand that segregation is acceptable if both sides are okay with it. That if no one harms anyone else over it, unlike the trans people who have been physically assaulted over the issue, then you can’t argue that it’s harmful.
All of his questions have answers, and you’ve given them. I don’t see how repeating them will help. But, hey, if you enjoy talking to a brick wall, have fun.
How about this case where many blacks oppose desegregation - is it okay because both sides are happy with it?
And hey, maybe 99.9% of the population was okay with segregation by sex, rather than gender, in bathrooms, and okay with excluding transgender people. Did that make it okay?
We can? But you said the reason for putting transgender people in a certain restroom was to protect them. Now you say that’s not necessary.
So if we go to unisex bathrooms, you’ll have to figure out a new way to protect them. All your efforts to protect them will come to naught. What will that new way be? And why not use it now?
How do racially segregated bathrooms cause harm?
Then when you answer the question above, remember not to say anything about feelings, only actual harm. How is anyone actually harmed by racially segregated restrooms? Their feelings, remember, are irrelevant.
No, I didn’t say that. That’s the reason to allow trans people to use gendered bathrooms matching their gender identity within a gendered bathroom custom. If we had different customs, then we’d probably need different practices to protect trans people.
Why would I want to “use it now” if it wouldn’t fit the customs of society, since society currently prefers a different system? I want trans people protected within the current society’s bathroom customs. I have no preference between the custom of gendered vs unisex bathrooms.
Because access and facilities were unequal. This already happened and was argued over.
Racially segregated restrooms existed for many years, with unequal access, and unequal facilities. They caused harm to many people.
I’m unaware of any similar harm for gendered restrooms, which have been around for much longer and much more widespread than racially segregated restrooms were.
They aren’t "gendered’ bathrooms, they’re “sexed” bathrooms - or so that is the custom. Citing custom doesn’t work here. You’re defying a custom, not upholding it.
Because you say you only care about harm and nothing else.
So if they had been made equal, it would be okay?
If whites and blacks had the exact same restrooms of the same quality and size, segregation by race would be okay?
You’ve never heard of “potty parity?” Women have to wait in long lines for their restrooms sometimes while men enjoy shorter lines. They are harmed by that exclusion.
They’ve always been gendered bathrooms. Maybe they were sexed bathrooms too. And yes, we’re defying a custom by openly tolerating trans people, but that’s because to do otherwise would cause harm.
In the present real world, the best strategy to avoid harm, as far as I can tell, is to allow trans people to use bathrooms per modern custom (in this case, gendered bathrooms) without threat. Changing to unisex bathrooms seems like a strategy with a much, much lower chance of success. Unless society changes their preference at large – which I’d be totally fine with, though I see no reason to push for it since it doesn’t seem superior in any way.
Based on the historical evidence, that was not possible.
If this is caused by unequal facilities, then that’s harm, and I’d definitely be open to looking into it and either changing facilities or even changing customs. But if it’s caused by biology, then there’s nothing that can be done about it that I can think of.
Not “maybe.” Before the transgender issue, there was no difference. Nobody imagined (other than transgender people of course) that there could be a difference.
So stop appealing to custom while you argue for breaking custom.
That’s a copout. What if they were? What if we did that today?
Biology? You’re saying biology rules and there’s nothing we can or should do about that in a discussion about transgender people?
I’m willing to push against custom when it causes harm – but gendered bathrooms cause no harm, so I see no reason to push against it. I don’t believe unisex bathrooms cause harm either, so I wouldn’t push against that.
We have tons of history to look back on. Every time we did racial segregation in bathrooms, it was unequal and caused harm. For decades and centuries. I would strongly oppose its return on this basis. Isn’t this logical and reasonable?
We also have tons of history to look back on for gendered bathrooms. They never caused harm, except when associated with other, harmful things (like racial segregation, or discrimination against trans people). So I don’t push against something that I see as neutral when it comes to harm.
No, I’m not saying that. Why bother trying to put words into my mouth, when you’ve failed at it so often? I’m saying that if longer wait times in ladies’ rooms are result of biology, then I’m not sure how that could be fixed. I’m certainly open to ideas. Of course, for me to seriously evaluate these ideas, they’d have to come from women who have experienced the problem and want to make changes.
Bottom line – I see no way in which unisex bathrooms better protect trans people, or provide any other superior outcome, than gendered bathrooms. I also see no way in which they are worse.
So I focus on the harm. I think the way to prevent harm with the greatest likelihood of success does not include pushing for a change from gendered bathrooms to unisex bathrooms. I believe that any possible solution pushing for this change is less likely to succeed than a solution that doesn’t push for this change, unless and until public opinion changes significantly and prefers unisex bathrooms over gendered bathrooms.
Yes. I’d listen, but I’d certainly be incredibly skeptical. Wouldn’t you?
Is this your new thing? No, I mean gendered bathrooms. Maybe they’re sexed also, but I don’t care about that.
If this is a real problem, then I’d be open to evaluating such a solution, and I’d be interested in hearing what women have to say about it (assuming that there aren’t already differences in bathroom sizes).