Unisex bathrooms thread

[d4m10n]

Creating a separate thread for this topic, since almost everyone has weighed in on teh endless thread by now.

Feel free to link back or requote any of the arguments made over there.

Here are some of the offsite resources worth considering:

Michael Nugent (argues for integration)

Mary Anne Case (argues for integration)

Ted Trautman (argues for integration)

Sheila Jeffreys (argues for segregation)

There is a relative paucity of high-quality arguments in favor of the usual approach, presumably because the status quo requires few defenders. I'd be interested in reading whatever you guys can dig up, however.

[d4m10n]

One more link. Here is an contemporary example of how the people who gave us separate water closets thought about the problem:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ouA0A ... 782&edge=0

Moral decency requires that where males and females are employed separate accommodations shall be provided which, in every sense of the word, will be private. Ignoring the obvious filth of this double accommodation for "men" and "females," close proximity of the fixtures separated only by a thin board partition, far from sound proof, and the common approach, such accommodations would be morally objectionable even if they were sanitary, clean, well lighted, and well ventilated.

Apply the golden rule in business. You would recoil with horror at the thought of your daughter being forced to avail herself of such accommodations. Treat other men's daughters, then, as you would like them treat yours.

Excerpted from Factory Sanitation by J.J. Cosgrove.

[d4m10n]

Just one last reference from back in the day when mass water closets came into vogue.

This time from a Senate Report on women and children in the workplace, dated 1910.

https://books.google.com/books?id=wtZGA ... 258&edge=0

As in Cosgrove, particular attention is given to the privacy of women. The moral grounds are not alluded to explicitly this time.

[jimhabegger]

There are some people who call themselves "women," who call some other people "men," and who think that they need to have some spaces where those people they call "men" are excluded, for them to be their best, and do their best, for themselves, for all of us, and for human progress. I know that because my wife is one of them. I agree with them.

I'm not sure that women's restrooms are an essential part of that. I'm not sure they aren't.

It looks to me like some people think that some male-bodied people would feel safer and more comfortable, and maybe even be safer, using women's restrooms instead of men's restrooms and/or free-for-all restrooms. Any or all of that might be true, and that matters to me. As I see it, that really has nothing to do with trans people. I doubt that trans women are the only male-bodied people who might feel safer or more comfortable, or even be safer, in a women's restroom. A lot of men, maybe most men, might feel that way. I think I would feel safer, and maybe even be safer myself, in a women's restroom, if there weren't too many other men in there. I wouldn't have any less consideration for a person's comfort or safety just because they aren't trans.

If trans men are allowed to use women's restrooms because of those comfort and safety issues, then it would seem wrong to me to exclude any other male-bodied people who face the same issues, no matter if they are trans or not. I wouldn't see any reasonable grounds to exclude anyone at all from women's restrooms. What concerns me about that is not any possible malicious motives and intentions of any men or trans women who might start using women's restrooms under the new rules. What concerns me is that it will nullify the value of women's restrooms, for most women, possibly without helping trans women or men at all, because there might be just as many men in the women's restrooms as in the men's.

I don't have an answer. I imagine that right now, in many places, there are some women who value their safe spaces including women's restrooms, some men and trans women who would prefer to use women's restrooms, some parents of children, and maybe some other people who have a stake in it, having loving discussions right now about how to best address everyone's interests and concerns at the same time. I hope they will have some say in what happens.

Whatever changes may happen in the policies, I would want them to be well-publicized and prominently display at the entrances to restrooms. For example, if the decision is to allow anyone to use any restroom they prefer, that information should be prominently displayed at the entrances to every restroom. For example:

WOMEN
NOTE: "WOMEN" means anyone, male or female, who wants to use this restroom.

[d4m10n]

It looks to me like some people think that some male-bodied people would feel safer and more comfortable, and maybe even be safer, using women's restrooms instead of men's restrooms and/or free-for-all restrooms. Any or all of that might be true, and that matters to me. As I see it, that really has nothing to do with trans people. I doubt that trans women are the only male-bodied people who might feel safer or more comfortable, or even be safer, in a women's restroom. A lot of men, maybe most men, might feel that way. I think I would feel safer, and maybe even be safer myself, in a women's restroom, if there weren't too many other men in there.

If someone is planning to ambush someone else when they are alone in a bathroom, the sign on the door isn't likely to make much difference.

What concerns me is that it will nullify the value of women's restrooms, for most women, possibly without helping trans women or men at all...

I'm unsure which particular values you have in mind. Possibly the peculiar sororal camaraderie that comes with a women-only space, the nature of which has on previous occasions driven me to avoid baby showers. Possibly the contentment of knowing that no penises are lurking nearby, being generally dickish. Possibly something I've yet to fathom.

Whatever changes may happen in the policies, I would want them to be well-publicized and prominently display at the entrances to restrooms. For example, if the decision is to allow anyone to use any restroom they prefer, that information should be prominently displayed at the entrances to every restroom.

Naturally. The unisex bathroom design at the Musuem of Modern Art restaurant is worthy of serious consideration, in my view. Fully private secure stalls, with a common area for washing up.

[jimhabegger]

Damion, sorry I never responded to your last post here. I just didn't think of anything more to say.

Steersman, if I understand what you're getting at, in the discussions about the meaning of "man" and "woman," I might agree with you. The reason different people are coming up with different answers, might be because they're answering different questions.

For example, one question might be, how do we decide, in our everyday lives, which people to call "women"? Then, speaking only for myself, I think it's mostly by learned reflexes, in response to a variety of observations, which might include their faces, their hair styles, their clothing, the shapes of their bodies, the ways they talk and act, the pronouns I hear people using for them, and/or hearing people calling them "women." It never involves trying to find out anything about their reproductive organs.

Another question might be, what do I think of, when I think of "women"? Then, for me, that's more or less some variation of well-known stereotypes of women, which does include some presumptions about their reproductive organs.

Another question might be, why does that classification exist in the first place, and/or what purposes does it serve? That's what I think you might be getting at. I would not presume to know, historically, why that classification exists, and it might serve more purposes than one, but it seems likely to me that it has been mostly to distinguish between childbearing people and their potential partners in procreation, and for that purpose people have mostly been classified at birth according to the genital organs between their legs.

[Steersman]

<snip>

Steersman, if I understand what you're getting at, in the discussions about the meaning of "man" and "woman," I might agree with you. The reason different people are coming up with different answers, might be because they're answering different questions.

Yea, I expect there's some truth to that: everybody, or most everybody, referring to different aspects or perspectives and not realizing that that is the case. Makes for a difficult conversation at best.

But I think the crux of the matter, the two primary aspects in play, is the difference between appearance and substance: what "appears" to be a woman, and what is actually the defining attribute - the sine qua non - for the class and all its members.

For example, one question might be, how do we decide, in our everyday lives, which people to call "women"? .... It never involves trying to find out anything about their reproductive organs.

Another question might be, what do I think of, when I think of "women"? Then, for me, that's more or less some variation of well-known stereotypes of women, which does include some presumptions about their reproductive organs.

Exactly. But stereotypes are generally not the substance, or certainly not the defining element or feature that is common to all members of the class. And many women, many feminists, have quite reasonably objected to using stereotypes to judge all women, and to, in effect, enforce behaviour patterns that are not at all reasonable or justifiable.

And while many might think I'm unreasonable if not obnoxious for belabouring this point - HunnyBunny, for instance, kind of asked "why [are you] a fuckhead for promoting this?" - I kind of think, as I've said several times, there's an important principle at stake here [cf, Cavanaugh, Matt] which goes to the heart of the depredations of post-modernism and identity politics, and the corruptions of language they promote.

Another question might be, why does that classification exist in the first place, and/or what purposes does it serve? That's what I think you might be getting at. I would not presume to know, historically, why that classification exists, and it might serve more purposes than one, but it seems likely to me that it has been mostly to distinguish between childbearing people and their potential partners in procreation .....

Generally a good question, and it might take an etymologist to provide a solid and credible answer. But I think that if you take a look at the Wikipedia article on female - and at the primary definition for "woman" as "a female human" - you might understand my argument that that attribute is the one most common to all members of the class. Seems to me that biology has, in effect, taken all of the myriad of attributes and behaviours that nominal women exhibit, and has boiled it all down to the common and defining feature "female". It does no good to insist than "non-bearded", for example, is the or even a defining attribute for "woman" when it is clear that many who happen to be female are also bearded. Likewise with many if not most other attributes which also correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with "female".

[jimhabegger]

I kind of think ... there's an important principle at stake which goes to the heart of the depredations of post-modernism and identity politics, and the corruptions of language they promote.

The corruption I see is not in using words in new ways. It's in using different meanings in deceptive and treacherous ways, like shifting between meanings and transferring associations between them; and imposing new definitions on agreements that were made where the words were understood differently.

... the primary definition for "woman" as "a female human ..."

Okay, so maybe I wasn't following you after all. What you're saying looks like circular reasoning to me, but that's beside the point for me. I might be seeing the same corruption of words that you're seeing, even if there's a disagreement or misunderstanding between us about where it goes wrong.

[Steersman]

I kind of think ... there's an important principle at stake which goes to the heart of the depredations of post-modernism and identity politics, and the corruptions of language they promote.

The corruption I see is not in using words in new ways. It's in using different meanings in deceptive and treacherous ways, like shifting between meanings and transferring associations between them; and imposing new definitions on agreements that were made where the words were understood differently.

Definitely an obscure and fuzzy process that I certainly don't have a good handle on. Though I'm not entirely sure that the "corruption" is entirely intentional - maybe more a case of carelessness. You might note my signature quote from Francis Bacon: ""Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways."

... the primary definition for "woman" as "a female human ..."

Okay, so maybe I wasn't following you after all. What you're saying looks like circular reasoning to me, but that's beside the point for me. I might be seeing the same corruption of words that you're seeing, even if there's a disagreement or misunderstanding between us about where it goes wrong.

Not quite sure why you would say that, although maybe that's part of the "fuzzy process", but I don't see it as "beside the point". Which is that that definition is primary or central; it's the "bedrock", the solid frame of reference, you need to build on if you want anything stable or long lasting. But you might look at, and pay close attention to the article on taxonomy, these passages in particular:

Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek: τάξις taxis, "arrangement", and -νομία -nomia, "method" is the science of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups. Organisms are grouped together into taxa (singular: taxon) and these groups are given a taxonomic rank; groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a super group of higher rank, thus creating a taxonomic hierarchy. .....

Taxonomy has been called "the world's oldest profession",[18] and naming and classifying our surroundings has likely been taking place as long as mankind has been able to communicate. It would always have been important to know the names of poisonous and edible plants and animals in order to communicate this information to other members of the family or group. ....

[jimhabegger]

Steersman, here's what I see you saying about the meaning of "women."

The defining feature of the class of people defined as the ones that produce egg cells, is that they produce egg cells.

That looks pretty logical to me. Now I'm wondering what people were disagreeing with you about. I'll go back and look.

[jimhabegger]

Sorry, I didn't say that right. What I see you saying is:

If we define "women" as "the class whose members consist of people that produce egg cells," then the defining feature of women is that they produce egg cells.

[jimhabegger]

Steersman, I think maybe I really understand what you're getting at now. You're saying that all the meanings of "women" are derived from one original meaning, which is "people who produce egg cells." If so, I agree with the point you're making, and I agree that it's relevant to the corruption of word meanings in identity politics. Only, I would say that the original meaning that all the others are derived from is "people who are labeled as female at birth," and the way that they are labeled is by looking between their legs.

[Steersman]

Steersman, I think maybe I really understand what you're getting at now. You're saying that all the meanings of "women" are derived from one original meaning, which is "people who produce egg cells."

"Derived from" essentially but probably not historically as I expect very few if any people much before maybe 1800 knew what cells were or that women produced the egg variety. Although maybe not, given the history of animal husbandry and chickens.

If so, I agree with the point you're making, and I agree that it's relevant to the corruption of word meanings in identity politics. Only, I would say that the original meaning that all the others are derived from is "people who are labeled as female at birth," and the way that they are labeled is by looking between their legs.

Yea, but increasing biological knowledge probably led to the conclusion that it wasn't necessarily what's between the legs but what's underneath the hood, so to speak, that counts and is definitive - i.e., the ability to produce ova.

[jimhabegger]

... it wasn't necessarily what's between the legs but what's underneath the hood, so to speak, that counts and is definitive - i.e., the ability to produce ova.

I see it as the "how" and the "why." I wouldn't expect to see much controversy about the "how," which is by looking between the legs, but there might be some disagreement about the "why." My theory is that from the beginning it has been to draw a line between biological mothers and biological fathers, and the simplest way to do that is by looking between people's legs when they're born. To me that doesn't mean that people born with female genitalia who don't produce egg cells aren't really women, in any sense of the word that has ever been widely understood. For one thing, even if the purpose of drawing the line was strictly to put egg cells on one side and sperm cells on the other, the actual line has always been drawn by looking between people's legs when they're born, and that has always been the most common understanding of the meaning of "women" and "men" that all the other meanings are derived from. For another thing, I don't think the purpose ever has been only to put egg cells on one side and sperm cells on the other. I think it has always been to define roles and responsibilities.

Like you, I see it as an open question how far back in history human procreation was associated in people's minds with eggs.

[Steersman]

... it wasn't necessarily what's between the legs but what's underneath the hood, so to speak, that counts and is definitive - i.e., the ability to produce ova.

I see it as the "how" and the "why." I wouldn't expect to see much controversy about the "how," which is by looking between the legs, but there might be some disagreement about the "why." My theory is that from the beginning it has been to draw a line between biological mothers and biological fathers, and the simplest way to do that is by looking between people's legs when they're born. To me that doesn't mean that people born with female genitalia who don't produce egg cells aren't really women, in any sense of the word that has ever been widely understood.

You're kind of a one track mind, aren't you? Not particularly interested in reading any of the science that's been labouriously developed over the years? That something is "widely understood" doesn't mean that it holds a lot of water - e.g., geocentrism. And you might note the standard definition for the term that leads the hit-parade in most dictionaries - medical and otherwise - as well as most encyclopaedias:

A woman is a female human. ....

wom·an n. pl. wom·en (wĭm′ĭn)
1. An adult female human.

And you might ask yourself, why that is the case.

For one thing, even if the purpose of drawing the line was strictly to put egg cells on one side and sperm cells on the other, the actual line has always been drawn by looking between people's legs when they're born, and that has always been the most common understanding of the meaning of "women" and "men" that all the other meanings are derived from. For another thing, I don't think the purpose ever has been only to put egg cells on one side and sperm cells on the other. I think it has always been to define roles and responsibilities.

Apart from wondering at your repetition of "looking between people's legs", I think that you are, again, putting the cart before the horse. It's not a question of "the purpose of drawing a line ...", but of the fact that humans are heterogamous, i.e., there are two, count them, two types of gametes. Period. You might actually try reading stuff - like the article on female - instead of just blathering.

Like you, I see it as an open question how far back in history human procreation was associated in people's minds with eggs.

Well, we agree on a few points ....

[d4m10n]

Good heavens, bathroom reform has made it to Oklahoma State U.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016091 ... 782345.jpg