By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The LGBT thread (Revisited)

Jaicee said:
JWeinCom said:

If a man is going into a bathroom and was being a pervert, it would be very difficult to prove that.  It would be impossible to prove that a man looking where he wasn't supposed to was doing so intentionally.  Even if he said or did something, it would become a he said she said situation.  In contrast, demonstrating that a man went into a woman's bathroom would generally be much easier.

By making it illegal (I don't know if it actually is, but lets assume) we accomplish two things.  First, we make deter men from entering the bathroom in the first place, lessening the likelihood that a woman is harassed to begin with.  Second, we make it so that in cases where there is a harassment, women have some sort of recourse.  Even if they can't prove the actual harassment, they can prove the... I guess we'll call it trespassing.

Whether that actually works or not, that's the theory behind it.  

I largely agree with the above logic, but will point out that I have said nothing here about the infamous "bathroom bills" that have been advanced by conservative forces in red states and actually enacted, and only partially, I believe only in North Carolina. Though they are best known for their bathroom privacy-related provisions, they also contain(ed) many other elements, like in one case a provision barring individual communities from passing any new laws advancing the rights of same-sex couples and gay individuals.

To be honest though, I was stunned by the ferocity of the corporate response to North Carolina's "bathroom bill", with whole industries and even the NBA pulling out of the state, essentially imposing voluntary economic sanctions, specifically over the restroom privacy provisions and not anything else. Now you take the response to say this whole raft of states last year passing laws banning abortions altogether, period, with no exceptions even for rape survivors, after just a few weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they're pregnant. There went out broad calls for similar boycotts of those states, and of Georgia in particular. The response this time? It turned out that it was racist to boycott Georgia because there are lots of black people there whose employment you'd be hurting! And thus it did not materialize. It hadn't been racist to sanction North Carolina, but it apparently was in the case of Georgia. I found it impossible not to notice the contradictory logic...and also the similarities. Similarities, you ask? The key commonality that made both of those contrasting responses possible can be found in that the interests of women were on the losing end in both cases.

Well anyway, like I said before, there are problematic elements in the so-called "bathroom bills" that have been advanced so far that make them challenging for me to support. Moreover, honestly the bathroom privacy issue really is the least of my concerns when it comes to this drive to make everything unisex anyway. It's a very minor issue from my standpoint that boils down mostly to one of convenience and comfort. The much more significant issues that I have with this whole let's-make-everything-unisex movement lie in the quest to "gender-neutralize" things like rape crisis centers, prisons, and transition houses for homeless and battered women and their children, those sorts of things. The women who occupy these sorts of spaces are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds and often among the most vulnerable members of society. We're talking about poor women, newly single moms, indigenous women and women of color, immigrant women, survivors of domestic abuse. These women really do need women-only environments and services for their basic safety and well-being. Most women won't use a rape crisis center or a transition house, for example, if it means that they have to say spend the night with a man, or just someone they perceive as a man (the psychological effect is all the same), they don't know just after experiencing rape! And prisoners have no way out, to state the obvious; to house them with biological males who are there in the first place for sex crimes just...I don't even know how to put my level of contempt for such proposals and policies into words.

Yes, trans people definitely need the same accommodations everyone else does, obviously. But I simply can't help but feel that when it comes to these sorts of settings especially, the creation and federal subsidizing of specialized accommodations designed to the particular needs of trans survivors, trans inmates, etc., would be far better for everyone concerned than making everything unisex.

I think the bathroom issue is a bigger deal because everybody poops.  So, it's an issue that effects everyone on a personal level and is easy to get invested in.  I honestly didn't really think about those other settings till you brought them up.  And maybe I should have, but it's not something I deal with on a regular basis.  

Regardless the issue is the same I think, just the stakes are higher.  It's a matter of balancing the real psychological concerns of women against the needs of trans people.  I think in certain issues, where there is time to make a decision (such as for prisoners assuming for a moment that the process works as it should) then I think you have the opportunity for a male to female seeking accommodations to present evidence that their professed gender identity is earnest.  In a bathroom situation though, that might be harder since we're not going to have a court hearing at the doors.



Around the Network

I personally find the endless discussion on toilets to be rather droll at this point.

I personally believe they should all be gender neutral, men and women get changed in front of each other at the fire station and no one actually gives a shit, we are there to do a job.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
I personally find the endless discussion on toilets to be rather droll at this point.

I personally believe they should all be gender neutral, men and women get changed in front of each other at the fire station and no one actually gives a shit, we are there to do a job.

Honestly, I don't like sharing a bathroom with anyone. So overall, I just prefer bathrooms that are set for single use. xD



Pemalite said:
I personally find the endless discussion on toilets to be rather droll at this point.

I personally believe they should all be gender neutral, men and women get changed in front of each other at the fire station and no one actually gives a shit, we are there to do a job.

Changing in front of people you know and can identify in a situation where there would presumably be accountability if anything inappropriate happened is different from a public bathroom situation.  



JWeinCom said:
Pemalite said:
I personally find the endless discussion on toilets to be rather droll at this point.

I personally believe they should all be gender neutral, men and women get changed in front of each other at the fire station and no one actually gives a shit, we are there to do a job.

Changing in front of people you know and can identify in a situation where there would presumably be accountability if anything inappropriate happened is different from a public bathroom situation.  

The fire station has windowed front doors to the base for the world to see us changing, I have no issues changing in front of other people, sometimes that's the case when you need to strip off in public down to your undies due to my PBI golds being contaminated, which has happened a few times.
It's just a bit of human skin, it's not the end of the world, nothing that hasn't been seen before.

And mens toilets generally have a urinal where you are doing your business in front of other people anyway.

Plus toilets have private stalls if you want privacy. - I stand by that public toilets should be gender neutral.

Toilets will always be used for nefarious reasons regardless of gender segmentation, thus it can't really be used as an excuse to retain segmentation.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
axumblade said:
Pemalite said:
I personally find the endless discussion on toilets to be rather droll at this point.

I personally believe they should all be gender neutral, men and women get changed in front of each other at the fire station and no one actually gives a shit, we are there to do a job.

Honestly, I don't like sharing a bathroom with anyone. So overall, I just prefer bathrooms that are set for single use. xD

This is why I don't go out in public. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4

JWeinCom said:
Pemalite said:
I personally find the endless discussion on toilets to be rather droll at this point.

I personally believe they should all be gender neutral, men and women get changed in front of each other at the fire station and no one actually gives a shit, we are there to do a job.

Changing in front of people you know and can identify in a situation where there would presumably be accountability if anything inappropriate happened is different from a public bathroom situation.  

What about gay/bi people? I happen to find both men and women attractive...does that mean I shouldn't be allowed in any public bathroom?



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4

Pemalite said:
JWeinCom said:

Changing in front of people you know and can identify in a situation where there would presumably be accountability if anything inappropriate happened is different from a public bathroom situation.  

The fire station has windowed front doors to the base for the world to see us changing, I have no issues changing in front of other people, sometimes that's the case when you need to strip off in public down to your undies due to my PBI golds being contaminated, which has happened a few times.
It's just a bit of human skin, it's not the end of the world, nothing that hasn't been seen before.

And mens toilets generally have a urinal where you are doing your business in front of other people anyway.

Plus toilets have private stalls if you want privacy. - I stand by that public toilets should be gender neutral.

Toilets will always be used for nefarious reasons regardless of gender segmentation, thus it can't really be used as an excuse to retain segmentation.


I think you underestimate the ability of men to be sketchy if you think the doors on stalls are really going to stop them. And whether or not some people will always do sketchy things in bathrooms, the question is if we can minimize those things through segregation.  

Lets suppose that studies find that women being harassed is actually a problem in non-segregated bathrooms.  What is the benefit to non-segregated bathrooms that would outweigh this issue?

Runa216 said:
JWeinCom said:

Changing in front of people you know and can identify in a situation where there would presumably be accountability if anything inappropriate happened is different from a public bathroom situation.  

What about gay/bi people? I happen to find both men and women attractive...does that mean I shouldn't be allowed in any public bathroom?

Generally, in sexual harassment/abuse, the aggressors tend to be men and the victims female.  Male/male or female/female sexual harassment doesn't tend to be as big of an issue.  So there's not that much need to keep gay/bi people out of men's rooms.

Regardless though, bi people need access to bathrooms.  So, even if male/male or female/female harassment was a major concern, we'd have to allow bi people in bathrooms because there's really no alternative.  Aside from the fact that I don't know how we'd possibly enforce it, the harm done by not allowing bi people access to any bathroom would outweigh the harm done by some of them potentially using bathrooms to harass people. 

On the contrary though, we already have a system in place that can reduce the risk of men harassing or assaulting women, which can be implemented without denying anyone access to restrooms.  So, in that case, why not use this system?



JWeinCom said:

I think you underestimate the ability of men to be sketchy if you think the doors on stalls are really going to stop them. And whether or not some people will always do sketchy things in bathrooms, the question is if we can minimize those things through segregation.  

Lets suppose that studies find that women being harassed is actually a problem in non-segregated bathrooms.  What is the benefit to non-segregated bathrooms that would outweigh this issue?

There are always going to be sketchy men. - And they are always going to be doing Sketchy things, not all men target women remember.
And I don't underestimate how many dodgy people there are... I am in multiple rescue agencies, I see the worst there is... But also some of the best.

Better toilet layouts and designs to minimize such behaviour is a better approach, don't have open spaces under/above doors for perverts to look under/above is one such measure... Better lighting helps too.
Having toilet blocks in more open, centralized spaces helps a ton as well in keeping shifty characters away.

JWeinCom said:

Generally, in sexual harassment/abuse, the aggressors tend to be men and the victims female.  Male/male or female/female sexual harassment doesn't tend to be as big of an issue.  So there's not that much need to keep gay/bi people out of men's rooms.

Regardless though, bi people need access to bathrooms.  So, even if male/male or female/female harassment was a major concern, we'd have to allow bi people in bathrooms because there's really no alternative.  Aside from the fact that I don't know how we'd possibly enforce it, the harm done by not allowing bi people access to any bathroom would outweigh the harm done by some of them potentially using bathrooms to harass people. 

Sexuality and sex are different things... And I don't think it is logistically possible to create further toilet segregation based on those traits.

If men are assaulting women, they will do it outside of a toilet environment, clearly they lack the self control of a dignified human being, so hows about we catch them before it even gets to that point first?

JWeinCom said:

On the contrary though, we already have a system in place that can reduce the risk of men harassing or assaulting women, which can be implemented without denying anyone access to restrooms.  So, in that case, why not use this system?

We have unisex toilets here that generally go without incident. It's not actually that big of a deal, no one is being denied access.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
JWeinCom said:

I think you underestimate the ability of men to be sketchy if you think the doors on stalls are really going to stop them. And whether or not some people will always do sketchy things in bathrooms, the question is if we can minimize those things through segregation.  

Lets suppose that studies find that women being harassed is actually a problem in non-segregated bathrooms.  What is the benefit to non-segregated bathrooms that would outweigh this issue?

There are always going to be sketchy men. - And they are always going to be doing Sketchy things, not all men target women remember.
And I don't underestimate how many dodgy people there are... I am in multiple rescue agencies, I see the worst there is... But also some of the best.

Better toilet layouts and designs to minimize such behaviour is a better approach, don't have open spaces under/above doors for perverts to look under/above is one such measure... Better lighting helps too.
Having toilet blocks in more open, centralized spaces helps a ton as well in keeping shifty characters away.

JWeinCom said:

Generally, in sexual harassment/abuse, the aggressors tend to be men and the victims female.  Male/male or female/female sexual harassment doesn't tend to be as big of an issue.  So there's not that much need to keep gay/bi people out of men's rooms.

Regardless though, bi people need access to bathrooms.  So, even if male/male or female/female harassment was a major concern, we'd have to allow bi people in bathrooms because there's really no alternative.  Aside from the fact that I don't know how we'd possibly enforce it, the harm done by not allowing bi people access to any bathroom would outweigh the harm done by some of them potentially using bathrooms to harass people. 

Sexuality and sex are different things... And I don't think it is logistically possible to create further toilet segregation based on those traits.

If men are assaulting women, they will do it outside of a toilet environment, clearly they lack the self control of a dignified human being, so hows about we catch them before it even gets to that point first?

JWeinCom said:

On the contrary though, we already have a system in place that can reduce the risk of men harassing or assaulting women, which can be implemented without denying anyone access to restrooms.  So, in that case, why not use this system?

We have unisex toilets here that generally go without incident. It's not actually that big of a deal, no one is being denied access.

Runa brought up sexuality.

Segregated bathrooms potentially reduce abuse (I don't know, I haven't really read studies).  Even if they don't, they tend to make women, at least in America, feel safer.  And people here at least just tend to prefer it this way.  So why exactly would we want to change that?  I would be open to changing it, but only if there were some benefit to doing so.