Sex segregation in public restrooms

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
A gender-neutral bathroom sign
Part of a series on
Gender
Icon gender.svg
Spectra and binaries

Sex segregation in public restrooms is the concept of having separate bathroom facilities for male and female individuals.

Obsolete historical reasons[edit]

The segregation at one time had a purpose, a purpose that is now obsolete. At one time in the Western world, only male bathrooms existed because of the attitude that women should stay home. The introduction of female bathrooms was a means to allow women in the workplace but still have them "separate but equal".[1][2] Over time, women have increasingly gained more rights, making the original reason of urinary segregation appear moot. Despite this, conservatives typically want to maintain tradition even if said tradition's reason is no longer relevant.

Arguments[edit]

For sex segregation[edit]

  1. Transgender people should use the bathroom corresponding to their biological sex be able to use whichever bathroom they want to, and/or additional unisex/non-binary bathrooms should be provided.
  2. Unisex-only bathrooms are an extreme solution to reduce the harassment of transgender people. It is not a problem of bathrooms, but of transphobia.
  3. Reforming bathroom design standards is a better solution for toilet equality. Historical inequality in bathroom design does not mean that going forward, sex-segregated bathrooms cannot be designed to give women equal treatment.
  4. In some cultures, it is acceptable for a woman to use a men's bathroom when there is a line for the women's bathroom.
  5. To prevent harassment, particularly from men towards women [note 1]
  6. The need for safe spaces.
  7. People, especially women, may avoid unisex toilets, leading to discomfort and wasted funds.
  8. Loss of urinals, which take up less floor space, conserve water, reduce spillage and increase pee-poo efficiency.
  9. Have you been inside a mens' bathroom? They are fucking disgusting fun. It is a feat of engineering that the volume of flowing urine on the floors doesn't cause erosion.
  10. Potential for discomfort and awkwardness.
  11. Bullying in schools, especially regarding menstrual hygiene.
  12. If restrooms were integrated, men would have to wait in long lines too.
  13. Tradition and morality.
  14. To prevent men from raping women.
  15. What about public changing rooms?

Against sex segregation[edit]

  1. Separate restrooms introduce harassment towards transgender people because it brings contradictions and ambiguity to traditional, binary gender beliefs.[4]
  2. Separate bathrooms introduce unequal treatment towards male and female bathrooms. Cisgender women spend longer and need to use the bathroom more frequently for various reasons, including to tend to their periods.[5]
  3. Urinals are sexist and you can't poo in them.

Bathroom Panic[edit]

Bathroom panic has a long history. In the mid 1970s, the conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly mobilised against the Equal Rights Amendment, using the argument that it would lead to unisex toilets, which would be dangerous for women.[6] Even back then, Judy Carter pointed out that unisex bathrooms had existed for centuries, especially on public transport, with few to no 'privacy' issues.

As a general rule, the main people harassed in bathrooms have been trans people[7] and cis women who are butch,[8] androgynous,[9] or even just have short hair.[10]

This is despite the fact that right wing groups have admitted the bathroom issue is 'largely contrived'.[11]

See Also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. Although it could be argued that men have also harassed men in men's rooms. E.g., gay cruising in men's rooms, particularly back when homosexuality was illegal in most Western countries.[3]

References[edit]