[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1072[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1564368404682.jpg (59.67 KB, 640x640, 1:1, Funny-Unisex-Toilet-Sign-P….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Is there any good argument for segregating bathrooms by sex (or even gender)? Are we not uncomfortable with the idea of being in a bathroom with the opposite sex only because that's how things have always been? I personally couldn't care less who is in my bathroom, as I see it all humans are there to do the same tasks and nothing more.

 No.1075

There's an argument for segregating bathrooms by gender identity (not sure if it's reasonable, myself, but I can't dismiss it out of hand) that goes something like this:

>A large group of Americans, maybe even the majority of people in some areas, are "pee-shy" (yes, it's a stupid term, but I didn't invent it and it's what's used online, so whatever) to some degree. Being around other individuals inherently makes it harder for them to go. This increases in terms of psychological stress the more strange and just generally not-like-them said others are. Gender identity is one of the most if not the most clear-cut things that bring about pee-shyness.
>Allowing bathroom anarchy (or whatever you want to call the idea of everybody going to the same communal space at once) leads to standoffs. "I can't go unless s/he goes". And who wins? Who loses? There's no clear-cut way to make those calls.
>Letting everybody have their own personal room just isn't physically practical in terms of building design.
>As a compromise, having bathrooms segregated by gender identity means that the number one burden of the pee-shy is lifted while, at the same time, the restrictions on people is as small as possible. If you're out of place, then you just have to walk one door over.

I can't pretend that this necessarily makes that much sense. But it's an argument.

 No.1076

>>1075
I've never heard this one, but it's an interesting take. I think people would be used to it eventually. Besides, most of the time you don't know who is in the stall next to you. Like I feel there's a lot of people that might cite a feeling of discomfort with the idea of unisex bathrooms but it comes down to them having no experience with the alternative. I can't imagine any inherent human reason for the separation. If it were what we just did, it would become as normal as segregated bathrooms are today.

 No.1077

>>1075
I think that makes kinda decent sense, I have a lot of pee-shyness, but I'm literally more nervous around men than I am of women so I think this other premise about people being more scared around people that are less like them, is maybe not true in all cases, but regardless it's probably true for most people.

More an argument for having private stalls in every bathroom, though, which is something that already exists.

The other argument for segregated bathrooms is that men/women are messy in different ways and members of the other sex don't want to have to deal with other kinds of 'mess' than they're used to (tampons, pea drips in places you really wouldn't expect pea drips to be because someone wanted to shac it, whatever else could be considered gender specific)

The other other argument is that at this point we're extremely socialized to do things seperately, and changing that social convention might take more energy, than just keeping it the way it is. Changing the whole system and getting everyone on board, there'd have to be some sort of tangible gain involved, otherwise it's easy to dismiss it as just undue fussing.

(of course, it would be a huge help to genderqueer people, I'm all for it)

 No.1079

What about the dangers of being peeped on?

 No.1080

>>1079
I feel like this is kind of a ubiquitous danger, in the sense that that can happen in same-sex bathrooms as well. But I suppose there's some argument to make for the idea that men are more likely to be sexual harassers when they share bathrooms with women (and of course vise versa).

I think the way to determine whether this really is an issue would be to look at some longitudinal studies of the implementation of gender neutral bathrooms and see if it increases the occurence of harassment in bathrooms, if such a study exists.

 No.1081

>>1076
>>1077
I can see the point that people will just get used to large unisex bathrooms if they were more around and got used a lot more. Over time, yeah. Still, from what I've looked at, being pee-shy appears to be partially innate rather than all social. It might be like, say, people's tolerance for risk or people's learning styles-- it's a mixture of genetics, childhoods, later adult choices, etc all in a big cocktail.

Huge swaths of people being pee-shy might just be a thing that's always going to be a part of humanity. And thus there's always gonna be a lot of people to where "Either s/he goes, or I can't go". Even with private stalls.

 No.1082

It's interesting that the history of sex segregation in bathrooms is rather incoherent and justifications have kind of floated around in a lot of different directions depending on the place and time.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisex_public_toilet#History_of_sex-separated_toilets

 No.1084

>Is there any good argument for segregating bathrooms by sex (or even gender)?

Not really, I don't get the point.

 No.1086

>>1077
>More an argument for having private stalls in every bathroom, though, which is something that already exists.
Eh, at least in the US, stalls aren't very private.  There are large gaps above and below the door, sometimes even there is a thin unoccluded vertical strip between the door and the rest of the stall.  Stalls in the UK tend to be a bit better.

 No.1087

>>1080
Well, while it CAN happen in same-sex bathrooms, it's less likely since a bigger portion of the population is heterosexual. Not only that, I've heard that women naturally feel more threatened by unwanted sexual attention from men then men do from women, because of evolutionary reasons. A misjudged sexual encounter with a less than optimal partner has less consequence for men than it does for women, at least on a biological level. So women fear unwanted sexual attention more than men do as a protective measure. Whether this fear is warranted in the modern era is something that can be debated, but it still remains.

 No.1088

>>1087
I could believe this, but I don't have any solid empirics.

It probably explains a lot of why so many people feel opposed to the bathroom bill, but whether or not it's a valid concern... idk And I'm too lazy to do the scopus search right now

 No.1089

>>1086
>Eh, at least in the US, stalls aren't very private.  There are large gaps above and below the door, sometimes even there is a thin unoccluded vertical strip between the door and the rest of the stall.
That's so dumb, though!

Why do they even do that? I've never understood this about the US

 No.1091

Well,
I suppose bathrooms are places where we poop and pee and apply make up and probably be more at our comfort to do the less pretty stuff.
If it becomes unisex, you'd just be less private.

Oh and I can imagine that the social faux pas of going to a bathroom of the opposite sex might lay more social control against harassment/rape.

Whether these arguments are really compelling is a different matter, but to me they make a little sense.

 No.1092

The deal with Unisex bathrooms is that women want to be able to go into men's bathrooms, but women don't want men to go into women's bathrooms.

It's a completely one-sided argument, and I for one am convinced that the only men in favor of Unisex bathrooms are white knights and creepers.

 No.1093

>>1092
I can't even imagine how you are coming to this conclusion, and I don't think it's befitting /townhall/.

 No.1094

>>1093

I'm contributing my opinion to this topic, and I'm not insulting anymore. I'm simply stating my thoughts on the matter, as is appropriate for /townhall/.

Not a single sensible person wants all this Unisex nonsense. Do you really think the majority of women are comfortable doing their make-up in the bathroom while a dude is pissing in a urinal behind them? It's all just insane garbage pushed by an increasingly unhinged fringe narrative.

 No.1095

>>1093
I've heard that overcrowding can be a problem in women's bathrooms, because women take longer in the bathroom than men.

I'm just guessing here, but I think this is where >>1092
is getting the idea that women want to use men's bathrooms. As for everything else he said, especially in >>1094, it sounds like anti-left propaganda.

 No.1096

>>1094
You don't get to say
>Not a single sensible person wants all this Unisex nonsense
on this board. That's not how it works. And yeah, you are being pretty insulting, considering you are calling everyone in the thread who disagrees with you as insensible and calling this idea "insane" just cause you have strong opposing feelings.

To answer your question, yeah most women probably wouldn't care so much. Prove me wrong with something more substantial than your feelings.

 No.1099

I hadn't thought about it before, but I'm wondering more and more now if socialization and time might be credible arguments for sex segregated bathrooms.

Since it's established that:
>First, women take more time when they visit bathrooms.
>Second, women are more likely to engage in full chats or otherwise socialize while in bathrooms.

Maybe it can be said that we need to fundamentally have to have two sets of bathrooms because they'd need to be arranged for different uses: the men's room should be utilitarian and based on "go in, get to your business, and get out". The women's room should be aesthetic and based on "take your time, and enjoy yourselves".

Maybe? Or does this sound silly?

 No.1102

>>1099
I can see your point, but we'd need to make sure these aren't just assumptions about men and women. It reminds me of a joke I saw on a sitcom as a kid: "The women's bathroom has a sofa? Why doesn't the men's?" "If it did... would you want to sit on it?"

 No.1103

I don't know if it's sexist or what, but a family member said that she would stay in a gender fluid bathroom with a small child if a man came in to use the bathroom.

She said, she wouldn't say anything, simply hang out in the bathroom to make sure nothing bad happens, and her argument was because fucked up kids make fucked up adults.

I still don't know how I truly feel about that argument.

I personally don't think young children should be left alone in a public place, period.

 No.1104

>>1099
>Maybe it can be said that we need to fundamentally have to have two sets of bathrooms because they'd need to be arranged for different uses: the men's room should be utilitarian and based on "go in, get to your business, and get out". The women's room should be aesthetic and based on "take your time, and enjoy yourselves".

It's an idea, but I've been in a whole lot of bathrooms, and the only difference between them is women get an extra trash can in each stall.  They aren't particularly more inviting or comfortable.

 No.1105

>>1089
>Why do they even do that? I've never understood this about the US

Originally it was for fire safety.  I guess stuff burned down a lot so they started leaving gaps so you could check if anyone was in there and enact a rescue.

Which still seems pretty weird, I don't think it applies these days, at least.

 No.1109

>>1105
I always assumed the point of it was so that in horror movies, the heroine can flee to the bathroom and hide with her feet up on the toilet, and then the bad guy will look under the stalls and see no feet then slowly open each stall one by one, and when they get to her stall the audience is at the edge of their seats and he opens it and nobody is there(!), because at some point she slid under the divider into another stall.

If we changed all our stalls to full privacy, we really couldn't have this moment in film anymore. I don't know if I'm ready to make that sacrifice yet.

 No.1110

>>1103
Uh, that seems kinda weird. Does that relative follow little boys into the men's room to protect them there too? Doubtful.

>>1099
Even if I take this for granted, I don't see why these things aren't achievable through a single larger bathroom as well. Have a section for urinals and stalls to get business done, and around the corner have many sinks for washing and personal grooming if need be. With a larger single space to work with I think we can do a lot more and make bathroom design functional for everybody's needs.

>>1095
It can go both ways I imagine. A lot of restaurants I've seen have had single stall men's and women's rooms. And like, if there's a dude in my assigned single stall restroom and no woman in the other, how does it make any sense that I have to wait when there are available facilities? Kinda really dumb if you ask me.

>>1081
I get pee shyness as a concern, though if we want to factor that into our decision making, then wouldn't we need to do something about the current state of affairs we have already? If I said that pee shyness is an important consideration when designing any bathroom, I'd have to conclude that all stalls need a private room, or at least be separate enough to not upset anyone. I'm not against that idea! But it comes back to, this isn't really a unisex bathroom issue, it's just a bathroom in general issue, right?

 No.1111

>>1110
>Uh, that seems kinda weird. Does that relative follow little boys into the men's room to protect them there too? Doubtful.

Yea I didn't feel too easy during that conversation. She's since said a few sexist things that kind of piss me off, but I don't want to start unnecessary confrontation.

 No.1112

>>1094
>Not a single sensible person wants all this Unisex nonsense.


Well actually I don't mind the idea at all.

And what does make up have to do with anything? I do my make up as a women is sitting in the stall beside and taking a shit, why would it bother me if it was a guy?

You sound very sexist or just really uncomfortable with the idea that the world changes. Things never stay the same, don't end up being one of those old people at the grocery store bitching that they moved the cans of ravioli.

 No.1113

>>1110
>it's just a bathroom in general issue, right?

I think so. I'm not a guy so I don't know how it feels, but I would think I would be embarrassed to stand and pee with no wall acting as a visual aid to block off my junk from anyone comimg into the bathroom. I would want privacy.

 No.1114

File: 1564520817929.jpg (157.69 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, CShYM1TUYAAkeYH.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1113
Well, besides at some stadiums which have these barbaric trough based urinals, bathroom urinals have privacy walls to your sides. So nobody is seeing your junk unless they are in the next urinal peeking over that wall.

 No.1115

>>1113
>>1114

Sometimes it's still a bit uncomfortable and I'll never really like it.  Better to just have stalls.

 No.1119

I don't think there is really any good reason to segregate restrooms by gender or sex in businesses if the restrooms are going to be single-occupant.

When a business decides to convert all their single occupant bathrooms to gender-neutral, it's almost like taking on the design philosophy of an airliner, airplanes with more than one restroom don't usually designate either of them as men's or women's restrooms for the sake of the convenience of the passengers, you never have a situatio where a person has to wait to use the restroom when another one with identical facilities is unoccupied.

 No.1120

>>1119

oops, same ip, lol

 No.1124

>>1072

There are a few good arguments to segregating bathrooms by sex as opposed to integrating them:

1. Women have periods, so their toilets have the potential to be more hazardous to the health. Keeping Group A, which has more potential to make Group B unhealthy than Group B does to themselves, separate, is the logical thing to do.

2. Keeping male/female energy separate is important for the perpetuation of the species and overall happiness. If everyone sacrificed their innate attractions for [the misguided application of] the ideal of equality, we would end up with a society that must repress their natural inclinations in the inherently private context of going about one's business in the bathroom.

3. "Gender neutral" bathrooms really only serve one type of person - a tiny minority of the population - the people who identify as gender-neutral, asexual, or non-binary. Since the vast majority of people are not any of those things, the current arrangement is best for the greatest number of people.

--

It is obvious from these arguments that gender-neutral bathrooms are not the way to go. So then what is the way to go? There are certainly problems with the current arrangement.

The solution, of course, means doing away with the paradigm of mechanical efficiency that everyone has been obsessed with in recent centuries, and to take into consideration the social element of efficiency... i.e. how can bathrooms be designed to be most efficient - not just mechanically, but socially as well? In the past, the social context was implicit - hardly even thought about - a male/female division. But now it is not as implicit. So bathrooms must be designed with a holistic view in mind.

This cannot be done simply by making current bathrooms gender-neutral or even just focusing on the gender issue. It requires a complete redesign which takes into consideration the perspective of all kinds of people.

An ideal end result would be a "bathroom resort" where people have many choices in going about their business... for the traditionalists, there would be male/female segregated bathrooms. for the community-minded, there would be a communal bathroom where everyone could go together. For the privacy-minded, there would be a section with individual toilets and even sink in each stall. And of course, there would be a "gender-neutral" section for people who don't care.

 No.1126

>>1124
I would like for you to elaborate more on number 2. For example, what you mean by "male/female energy" and why it's important to keep them separated.

 No.1127

>>1126

> For example, what you mean by "male/female energy"

"What is feminine energy?

Feminine energy is:

Receptive, soft, fluid, allowing, nurturing, sensual, empathetic, flexible, emotional, and expressed through the subtle realm.

What is masculine energy?

Masculine energy is:

Focused, goal-oriented, stable, strong, structured, logical, driven, and expressed through the physical realm."

Most males are masculine, and most females are feminine, so separating out the energies is most easily done by sex.

It's important to keep them separated in private because when you're going to the bathroom or doing bathroom things, your energy is more vulnerable.

For example, a woman might want to put on makeup, but if her energy isn't strong enough (and likely isn't if she hasn't had any spiritual training), can easily be disrupted in the subtle realm by the more physical gestures and movements of someone who is masculine. On the other hoof, she might become more masculine herself in order to protect her energy - and that is not being true to herself.

The presence of feminine energy around males has well-documented effects, resulting in similar effects as the former scenario - either the dampening or exaggeration of masculine energy.

This is not a new concept - it is the reason for all-girls and all-boys schools and such... though that is considered extreme by most now... but in the setting where energy is most vulnerable, the separation should remain.

 No.1129

>>1127
Is this related to concepts from Traditional Chinese Medicine?

 No.1131

>>1129

I don't know. I'm just using liberal terminology to explain what conservatives are unable to explain themselves, due to the limits of their religion, but which they know inherently.

 No.1132

>>1131
But how do we know that conservatives aren't just clinging to old traditions because that's what the religious do?

I find any claims of male and female energy highly dubious, as it's all based on persona perception and not anything measurable. You even mention that not all women have "feminine energy" and not all men have "masculine energy", so then why do we use the terms masculine and feminine to define it?

 No.1133

>>1132

>But how do we know that conservatives aren't just clinging to old traditions because that's what the religious do?

There is a reason they are clinging to old traditions, and that is the true reason.

>I find any claims of male and female energy highly dubious, as it's all based on persona perception and not anything measurable.

I'm sure one could measure those specific traits if they wanted to.

>You even mention that not all women have "feminine energy" and not all men have "masculine energy", so then why do we use the terms masculine and feminine to define it?

Because that's the case for the majority of people. I suppose you could define it as inward/outward flow, but that makes it harder to associate with something or someone tangible.

 No.1134

>>1124

Gender neutral bathrooms are actually by far the norm, I think it's worth pointing out.  For starters, literally every residential bathroom is gender neutral, I have never seen someone separate their home bathrooms into male and female.  A great deal many commercial buildings also have gender neutral bathrooms, from offices to schools to restaurants.  Usually, these are a single stall, essentially not unlike the residential bathrooms, but employed in areas that can still be quite public.

So in more direct response, I think points one and two you've given are immediately struck down.  Men share bathrooms with women all the time and none of them are infected by their periods.  And with the slight exception of whether the seat should be up or down, I don't think there's any clashing of energies, either.

As for the third point, given that gender neutral bathrooms are actually so common, the real question is who gendered bathrooms serve.  The default is that people just want to go in, pee, and leave, which doesn't require things to be segregated.  Gender neutral bathrooms are a boon to anyone who wants to use the bathroom without waiting for gender based restrictions.  Something outside of the normal and expected must have happened to encourage bathrooms to be segregated, and it's worth it to look at what exactly those causes were and whether they're still a problem or if people can just be allowed to pee in any toilet they encounter.

 No.1135

>>1134

>Gender neutral bathrooms are actually by far the norm, I think it's worth pointing out.

Obviously, when I define a bathroom as "gender neutral," I'm defining the people in the bathroom at any given time, so if a bathroom usually only occupies one person at a time, for the time that it is occupied - it would be men/women/gender-neutral depending on the person occupying it

>Men share bathrooms with women all the time and none of them are infected by their periods.

We would need to research it - check for rates of, say, Hep A infection in men's vs. women's bathrooms.

>given that gender neutral bathrooms are actually so common

it is not a given.

>Something outside of the normal and expected must have happened to encourage bathrooms to be segregated, and it's worth it to look at what exactly those causes were and whether they're still a problem or if people can just be allowed to pee in any toilet they encounter.

Maybe - or perhaps it is simply normal courtesy to give women separate bathrooms to allow for more privacy to deal with their extra stuff

 No.1139

>>1072
>good argument
>how things have always been
Is there a better argument for prescriptive social behavior?

If you wish to optimize the problem of toilet for efficiency, I can think about that.  Analysis of safety will be harder because attack in a bathroom is rare, and reasoning about rare events is hard.

 No.1141

>>1134
I'm going to most likely agree with all of this.

 No.1144

File: 1564749003526.jpg (9.64 KB, 225x225, 1:1, images.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1127
This idea of men an women having different roles is sure interesting, but I think you need a more cogent explanatory model than just 'different energies'. It's a little bit vague and airy.

Or perhaps I just haven't read whatever theory you're referring to.

 No.1146

Depends on if we're talking bathrooms that are built to serve one person at a time, or bathrooms that are made to serve multiple people at a time. 1-person bathrooms, i don't feel there's really a good argument for segregating them, but there is an argument against single-person bathrooms overall, as they're inevitably inefficient use of space to process high levels of demand. It might work for a small shop or office, not a crowded stadium or something. Multi-use bathrooms are certainly going to be a more efficient use of space and resources for processing a lot of demand than multiple small ones, but here's where you run into potential problems with urinal walls. If women are upset with men simply sitting with their legs slightly parted, so much so that they thought it necessary to design a chair to ""deal"" with the ""problem"", how do you think they're going to react to a wall of dudes with their dicks out? Probably not well.

 No.1147

>>1146
>so much so that they thought it necessary to design a chair to ""deal"" with the ""problem"", how do you think they're going to react to a wall of dudes with their dicks out? Probably not well.

Lol, this take is so incredibly arse.

Why is it that whenever internet reactionaries try to read social justice you have to

1) exaggerate the degree to which people are upset, and what they are upset about
and
2) pretend like women are some kind of monolith hivemind who all believe the same thing.

You would never accept people doing this with men, but you're fine applying this generalization to women.

 No.1148

>>1147
I've not seen any women come out against the chair, I've seen a handful of women come out for the chair.

 No.1149

>>1148
Ah-ha.

So I suppose it's reasonable then to assume that all women are one way, because a few women are that way?

Do you even know, the purpose of these chairs?

They're for the most part, provocative works of art. Meant to stimulate thought and reflection. You might feel offended by this art's message, but remember, it's just a caricature of a situation. It's meant to put things a bit bluntly, to draw an exaggerating figure of everyday life.

Don't go assuming women lack the emotional maturity to see penises, just because of a few pieces of art or the people that endorse them.

 No.1152

>>1149
You shouldn't even see a guy's penis if he's using a urinal. His back is to you and there's a divider on either side of him.

And as hilarious as this sounds, I once saw someone came up with an invention for women to use urinals. It's essentially a cardboard funnel. Women press it against themselves, pee standing up, then throw the funnel away. You could, feesibly, make these available in bathrooms the same way toilet paper and towels are. But I wonder how willing women would be to use them, and stand there with the rest of us.

Also, yeah, the "manspreading" backlash against the backlash is getting a bit silly.

 No.1153

>>1152
There's that point as well. Although I definitely wouldn't use a cardboard funnel myself. Sounds a bit silly.

 No.1154

>>1152
>You shouldn't even see a guy's penis if he's using a urinal. His back is to you and there's a divider on either side of him.

Not like actually seeing a penis is even  the issue for these people. After all, the manspreading chair are there so that people don't need to see the outline of a bulge under at least 2 layers of clothing. Even the implication of a penis is terrifying to these people. It's like their Voldemort.

 No.1155

>>1154
oh my god

Everyone stop thinking that art piece was actually meant to be implemented into reality

For a group of people that really hate sjws, you keyboard warriors sure do seem to get triggered a lot

 No.1156

>>1154
Who are "these people"?

 No.1161

>>1153
But yeah, as I mentioned in >>1087
since women feel more threatened by unwanted sexual attention than men do, I think that's going to be the biggest issue with unisex bathrooms. Women won't feel comfortable with men in their bathrooms, whereas men would probably just get used to women in their's.

 No.1162

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6CTXVx0_B6Q&t=459                                                                                                                         

 No.1236

>>1155
How is my reasonable observation that those who get terrified of seeing the suggestion of a penis, so much so that the term 'manspreading' is not only a part of our common dialogue, but considered such a problem that people have spent time money and energy divising a solution, would probably not feel comfortable in a room with exposed penises, and therefore unisex bathrooms would be a bad idea, an example of me being triggered? It's just a reasonable observation and simple deduction. If I've made any fallacies or logical missteps, please, do point them out.

 No.1237

>>1236
>If I've made any fallacies or logical missteps, please, do point them out.
There are no exposed penises in the men's room, let alone a unisex bathroom. I've lived an entire lifetime using men's rooms and never seen any penis outside my own.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, the reason people are anti manspreading is because it takes up space, not because you can see the crouch. Like, men or not, only an asshole takes up the area that's intended for the bordering seats. That's how I understand the issue for most women. I'm sure there's someone out there who is afraid of the bulge, but there's also people afraid of pineapple on pizza. The actual majority against manspreading just wants their space respected.

Also also, one person creating an art project is very different from
>people have spent time money and energy divising a solution
You can't really extrapolate anything of substantial value about how women as a group would feel based on one woman's deliberately provocative art project.

 No.1238

File: 1565465540744.png (414.46 KB, 3002x3404, 1501:1702, 1474078041406.png) ImgOps Google

>>1237
>pineapple on pizza.
That is a crime against humanity!

 No.1240

>>1238

That really doesn't contribute to the discussion.  Refrain from senseless posts on /townhall/.

 No.1242

>>1237
There are exposed penises near the urinals. You'd have to look to see them, but I doubt it'll stop feminists from taking their relative exposure well.

Bring a picture of a penis to a feminist meeting, see how well they take it. Then tell me there's no penisphobia.

As for taking space, seems like an issue only if things are crowded. Do you think, then, in an uncrowded place, that the people who normally object to manspreading wouldn't take issue with it? Seems like a good way of isolating the motivation.

Also, if it's just about taking space, why have 1 chair for men and one for women? Why would everyone not have to use the ballbuster chair if it's about taking space like you say it is?

 No.1247

>>1242
Wouldnt anyone react negatively to randomly being shown a penis against their consent?

 No.1248

>>1242
Okay, we are going to get side tracked by the definition of "exposed" here. So instead, I'm going to use the word visible.

There are no visible penises in a unisex bathroom, as in, you should have zero expectation of seeing any penis (outside your own if you have one) when using a unisex bathroom under normal conditions.

Under these circumstances, the vast majority of women and feminists would not have any issues with the operations of a unisex bathroom. Why would they? It's not like women get upset that behind a series of walls there are penises "exposed" in the men's room.

Why are you bringing a picture of a penis to a feminist meeting? To actually add to the meeting or to disrupt it? Of course I would be pissed if you were to disrupt my meeting by showing a picture of a penis just to get a rise. But, would anyone faint or be afraid or whatever penispobia means? No. Feminist women are way less likely than non feminist to actually be shy or afraid of the image of a penis. It's really more like the southern belle type of women I'd expect to be shocked and appalled by the image of a penis. I think you have a misunderstanding of what feminist women are actually like and why they object to certain things.

>Do you think, then, in an uncrowded place, that the people who normally object to manspreading wouldn't take issue with it?
100% yes! That's right on the money. As long as, the second someone gets on the train or bus, you close up and give them an opportunity to take your space. It's only even a feminist issue because for some reason, some men think they are entitled to the extra space because they have a dick and balls. Think of this like having your backpack on the seat next to you. Once someone might need the space, you should move it to your feet or lap. Otherwise you're an asshole. There is nothing going on further than that, other than it happening to be men who are always that asshole not moving their backpacks. If lots of women refuse to move their purses from the seat next to them when you wanted that public space, would you not get uppity at women too?

>Also, if it's just about taking space, why have 1 chair for men and one for women? Why would everyone not have to use the ballbuster chair if it's about taking space like you say it is?
First off, you understand this is 100% art and not actually ever intended to be used in to real world, correct? Even if you've seen some women promote the use of these chairs no one but the most fringe extremists actually want to implement them. It's just art!
That said, you are really not seeing the point of "provocative art". If this were actually about men showing off their junk, there would be no women's chair. There would be no point to a women's version. The point of the art, is that women are trained to be uncomfortable for the sake of men, so they too need a chair to "correct" their behavior. Men get a chair to correct their behavior and women get one to correct theirs. So, we don't all get the same chair because it's just some frikken artist trying to make a statement about gender roles in society. Not because it's a practical solution that anyone seriously is pushing.

I feel like, you don't actually know feminists that well. I think you should try to get to know some actual, mainstream feminists and not the caricature of them that you think you know. Looking at the most fringe elements and thinking they represent the whole is a bad idea. Just because you see someone saying "yeah, we need these chairs!" doesn't mean that is them making a serious suggestion or them representing all of feminism.

 No.1250

>>1247
>against their consent

I didn't think men were purposefully trying to force other people to see their dicks.

If I happen to look through a window that isn't covered while I am walking down the street, and see a flash of tits (and the women was not aware her window curtain was even open), is that "against my consent"? There wasn't even a chance for their to be a consent issue.

Put some basic privacy walls up, it's not that difficult.

 No.1252

>>1250
I think you've missed some context in endearing bee's post. I'm pretty sure they are reacting to attractive narwal saying
>Bring a picture of a penis to a feminist meeting, see how well they take it.
So like, bee is saying that sure maybe feminists would react negatively to being shown a penis without consent, but who wouldn't.

 No.1253

>>1252
>but who wouldn't
Anyone who regularly browses /b/?

 No.1254

>>1253
That is... not most people.

>>1252
I was endearing bee and I'm confirming this is what I meant.

 No.1321

>>1252
Personally i think it's immature to overreact. Human's should not be default terrified of our natural form. Culturally, something has gone very wrong that being the case. Am i the only one who isn't secretly loosing their shit while changing in a locker room because the fearsome beast penis is out? Should i be terrified because lurking just under 2 layers of clothing there's penises everywhere?

This is all very, very dumb. A penis is just a part of the body like any other. There's nothing threatening about it. Maybe there's an argument for being intimidated by an erect one irl, as there's the implication of arousal and sexual activity and readiness, but that's a moot point with a picture, since the owner isn't erect and close to be a potential threat. Even that though only operates under the misandrist assumption that men are beasts that can't control themselves, rather than the more likely case, which is that women have purposefully muddied the language, so there's a thousand crossed wires and no commonly safe way for men to engage, and women don't want to engage, so here we are.

 No.1324

>>1072
I'd rather have completely single stalls, myself.
Having the bathrooms split by gender is nice, since it lets me have to only wait for one half of the potential population who needs to use the restroom. But, I can't go when anyone else is around.

 No.1325

>>1077
>More an argument for having private stalls in every bathroom, though, which is something that already exists.
Those stalls, at least for me, are far from private enough.
I pin it mostly on sound, honestly. Though the gap between the walls and the floor also plays in to it.

 No.1326

>>1237
The entire issue around "man-spreading" is dumb, anyway.
If you're going to complain to anyone, complain to the people who're desperate to maximize profit by creating as tiny as physically possible seats.

Besides, frankly, I can't have much sympathy for people who're complaining about "manspreading", since I never see them complain about how so many women place their massive bulky purses in seats as well.
If it's just about space, they should be just as angry about those people. But, it seems distinctly to be a gendered issue as it is.
>>1248
>The point of the art, is that women are trained to be uncomfortable for the sake of men,
This may come as some surprise, but, the vast majority of women do not have balls.
The entire reason for 'manspreading' is that balls get rather uncomfortable if your legs are together. They can end up feeling squished, as well as in cases of hotter temperatures, they tend to get overheated, and can get rather sticky as a result latching on to clothes in an uncomfortable way.

If you want to talk "trained to be uncomfortable", I would make the argument that it is actually men who're actively trained to be uncomfortable for the sake of women.
I was, for instance, always taught to give my chair up for women. I am also told to, in the case of 'manspreading', place myself in an uncomfortable stance so that they have some more room. Overall, I've been taught to try to give them as much space as I can, when it comes to seating. Outside of seating, things're emphasized even more, I would say.
Now, you could say these things aren't that common any more, sure. Personally, I'd pin that a bit on feminism, but, by all means, these 'gentlemenly' courtesies aren't as common any more.
But, I would absolutely disagree with the notion that women are trained to be "uncomfortable for the sake of men".

I'm going to make the assumption here, given the large lack of understanding of these particular struggles, that you are probably not a man. Perfectly fine, of course, but, it does mean you're not going to be able to really understand where men are coming from around these particular issues.
Just as I am sure to be unable to around issues women face, of course.
It's why it is important to never assume malice, if you can help it, to these kinds of things. If some people're doing a certain thing you find odd, maybe actually look in to why they're doing it, as opposed to instantly assuming they're dicks because they spread their legs out in the tiny seats they have.
Hell, it might actually mean more practical solutions to these problems, beyond simply condemnations and instances that men be uncomfortable for your sake. Maybe we can get the space in our common transports such as buses or trains increased some, to accommodate our mutual discomfort due to space. Maybe there's an actual, reasonable chair design that could help along these issues, allowing better airflow say, or a way to space the balls some, so as to decrease the need for spreading. Who knows, maybe you can design some rather specialized underwear for this issue, with specific sizing and placement changes in the same way as women's bras. It's certainly far, far better than insisting men're doing something wrong, because they're uncomfortable and take measures to fix that.

 No.1327

>>1321
Okay, I don't disagree, but culturally we are a society that keeps our privates private. You want to form a society with open nudity? I'd join.

Btw, you seem to be making this out to be about women, but as many men would freak out seeing a random dude airing their junk in public. People in general are not pro penis in public.

 No.1328

>>1326
>I never see them complain about how so many women place their massive bulky purses in seats as well.
I would, I think most people would. Have you ever actually met someone who says "I have no problem when women take up my seat space with their purse"? Doubt it.

>But, it seems distinctly to be a gendered issue as it is.
Like I said, we call people assholes who don't move their shit when other people need the seat. It's a pretty universal feeling. So we don't need to talk about it. But manspreading is a separate issue in which some people can't just admit that it's a bad thing and move on. Why are you actually here again? You have a right to give your opinion of course, but I'm not sure, what are you even fighting for?

>The entire reason for 'manspreading' is that balls get rather uncomfortable if your legs are together.
As an owner of a set of normal sized balls myself, I really have a hard time believing this. Unless I have special magic testicles, having my legs forward in front of me is not even slightly uncomfortable. Now, if you asked me to tilt them in all the way that might be less comfy, but nobody is asking that. Unless you got apple size balls, I really can't take you seriously. If it's uncomfortable, it's such a minor discomfort that you're only complaining because you are annoyed at women for making a deal out of it. Am I wrong?

>It's certainly far, far better than insisting men're doing something wrong, because they're uncomfortable and take measures to fix that.
You missed the point of all this entirely. I respect if someone wants to spread out a bit when there's space to go around. And I doubt majority of feminist women actually care either. It's when the space becomes short in supply and he continues to take up more than his share of public space that it's a problem that suddenly people bitch about. That entitlement to other people space, to take comfort from others for the sake of your own. That's the problem people have with it and you are strawmanning and cherry picking if you say otherwise.

 No.1329

>>1328
I've seen it far, far less than I have people complaining about "manspreading". I've also never seen the people who complain about "manspreading" ever so much as mention it.

>Like I said, we call people assholes who don't move their shit when other people need the seat.
Maybe you do. Most folk, near as I can tell, are fairly non-confrontational. The best you get is complaining about it later.

> But manspreading is a separate issue in which some people can't just admit that it's a bad thing and move on. Why are you actually here again? You have a right to give your opinion of course, but I'm not sure, what are you even fighting for?
It's not a matter of 'fighting for' something. Though 'fighting for' might be a thing I just don't really like, as far as terminology goes.
The reason I'm here, complaining, however, is there seems to be a particularly large group of sexists who are remarkably upset that I do not want to sit in an uncomfortable way, actively crushing my balls, that seem very eager to call me an asshole if I dare do sit in a manner that keeps them from hurting.

>As an owner of a set of normal sized balls myself, I really have a hard time believing this. Unless I have special magic testicles, having my legs forward in front of me is not even slightly uncomfortable
Perhaps you do not actually have 'normal sized balls'. Or, perhaps you've got smaller thighs. Perhaps you're living in a cooler place, so it doesn't matter as much.
I will absolutely say that it personally hurts like hell if I try to sit like that. Hell, I usually sit cross-legged on my chair at the computer, specifically because of this stuff.
I don't think I have larger than usual balls, either. Could be I am wrong.

>If it's uncomfortable, it's such a minor discomfort that you're only complaining because you are annoyed at women for making a deal out of it. Am I wrong?
Yes. I'm annoyed because, frankly, sexist assholes are assuming I'm a dick because I do not want to be actively in pain, as I live my daily life.
I'm annoyed because even if you aren't actually bothering anyone, they whine about it.
I'm annoyed because I am very much sick and tired of assholes assuming absolute malice whenever a man does something they find inconvenient.
>That's the problem people have with it and you are strawmanning and cherry picking if you say otherwise.
If I am "strawmanning and cherrypicking", then you, absolutely, are as well.
Alternatively, perhaps it's simply that you and I are coming from vastly different perspectives on the issue. You're coming from the perspective that it's reasonable people complaining about this issue, I'm coming from the perspective that it's unreasonable people complaining about it.
It's entirely possible the people you've dealt with are reasonable, and the people I've dealt with are unreasonable. Given your desire to restrict the conversation to a very specific set of circumstances, and insist on what is the 'majority' of feminists positions, I'm inclined to believe that is the case.
I am not inclined to change my particular perspective, however.
But, as in the case with manspreading to begin with, not assuming people're acting maliciously is generally a good thing;.
Frankly, immediately jumping to malicious accusations, typically speaking, makes you an asshole.
This applies to everything from manspreading, to arguments.

 No.1330

>>1328
And honestly, thinking about it, if the argument is that I should bear "minor discomfort", then, you can bear the "minor discomfort" of having ever so slightly less space.
If I'm an asshole for not wanting to have physical discomfort as a result of having to close my legs around my balls, then you're just as much an asshole for demanding that extra few inches it'd somehow get you.
If I don't have entitlement to other people's space, neither do you. You do not have a right to the space I've taken for my comfort, because of your discomfort, if that's the logic.

 No.1331

File: 1566137705463.jpg (1.31 MB, 1552x1762, 776:881, 123°C.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1326
>as well as in cases of hotter temperatures, they tend to get overheated, and can get rather sticky as a result latching on to clothes in an uncomfortable way.
Overheated testicles also decreases fertility, because sperm production requires a lower temperature than average core body temperature.  In fact, that's the reason that the testicles are outside the main body cavity.  So if a man is trying to get his wife pregnant, it's important for him to keep his testicles in the optimum temperature range for spermatogenesis.

 No.1332

>>1329
>I've also never seen the people who complain about "manspreading" ever so much as mention it.
I feel like I explained that, I think we all universally agree that people taking up space with their bags when people need a seat are assholes. So why would we need a national dialog over it?

>Most folk, near as I can tell, are fairly non-confrontational. The best you get is complaining about it later.
Have you personally seen someone go off in public over manspreading? I'm genuinely curious. I've never seen it myself, not to say it doesn't happen. I'm certain it happens, but does it happen to you a bunch, whereas you never see anyone make a fuss over someone's bag taking up other people's space? If not, why are you complaining, it's not even a part of your life.

>there seems to be a particularly large group of sexists who are remarkably upset that I do not want to sit in an uncomfortable way, actively crushing my balls, that seem very eager to call me an asshole if I dare do sit in a manner that keeps them from hurting
You are, factually, an asshole if you take up other people's allocated space on a public transit (Important! when the space is needed by others! Do what you like on an empty transit). If your balls hurt so much, get a handicap placard and sit in the disabled spaces. Otherwise, you are right now being an asshole and crying that people are calling you out for being an asshole. If you want to be an asshole, own it, don't bitch that people are calling you out on it.

>Perhaps you do not actually have 'normal sized balls'. Or, perhaps you've got smaller thighs. Perhaps you're living in a cooler place, so it doesn't matter as much.
>I will absolutely say that it personally hurts like hell if I try to sit like that.
Okay, I want to respect our differences in the matter. Maybe it's that I wear very loose shorts and boxers and the balls have room to adjust. I dunno. I literally just looked up "does it hurt men to sit with their legs together" and pretty much everyone responding is saying 'yes'. So I can't discount what I'm being told. I'm okay if I'm the abnormality in this. Actually I just tested it out, my balls sit on top of my thighs when I completely close my legs. No discomfort at all. Maybe my sack is longer to be able to do that and yours can't?

But regardless of pain and discomfort, the fact of the matter is, we are all allocated a specific amount of room on public transit, and if the bus or carriage is full, we have to deal with discomfort. Do you disagree? Do you actually think that you should be able to take up part of the legroom of the women seated next to you? If not, what are we even arguing about?

>It's entirely possible the people you've dealt with are reasonable, and the people I've dealt with are unreasonable. Given your desire to restrict the conversation to a very specific set of circumstances, and insist on what is the 'majority' of feminists positions, I'm inclined to believe that is the case.
This is probably correct. But I mean, what do you think is happening here between our differing perspectives? It's not like I don't see the feminists who are being unreasonable too. And I'm not "no true Scotsman"ing them out of the picture. They are feminists as much as any other feminist. But the thing is, based on personal observation, they aren't the majority. And I run in feminist circles, I have a lot of experience in feminist communities (do you? Or do you just sit on the outside while occasionally being shown the most outrageous things that come out of feminism?) I don't now how big their minority is, but I know they certainly don't represent women and feminism as a whole. So I just set them aside in the same place I set nazis and racists and then try to focus on the important things. It is my perspective here, that you are giving them too much voice, making it out that they represent all women or all feminism. That's what I mean by cherry picking and strawmanning. If that's not the case, if you respect they are a vocal minority and don't represent the whole, then I don't really have much of a beef with you. Because I too think those ones who rage in unreasonable ways are crazy and should be dismissed. I just don't do so by making a fuss over legitimate issues such as people being inconsiderate on public transit.

>>1330
First of, that's pretty dumb because that's just not how public transit works. Otherwise, why not just lay down across the seats? Because when it is full, we are all given a certain amount of equal space. That's how it works and only assholes disagree. As I said before, if you want to be that that's fine, but at least own it.

Now, real question here. Let's say there are a set of seats. And all of them are occupied by men with big ol' testicles! What is supposed to happen? Whoever has the most powerful thighs gets to push them out and the beta males suffer crushed balls? Like, seriously, what do you think should happen if not "we all take up an equal amount of space"? Now, if we put women into the equation, why does anything change from "we all take up equal space"? Is it because of discomfort? In that case, as a very large and broad man, do I get to take up extra portions of your space because I'm otherwise more discomforted having equal proportions? I doubt you would agree to letting me stick my elbows out into your sides so that I wouldn't be discomforted, would you?

 No.1333

>>1332
>I feel like I explained that, I think we all universally agree that people taking up space with their bags when people need a seat are assholes. So why would we need a national dialog over it?
Because you think that, yet I've not seen anything ever said about it, no insistence that "women correct their behavior" as I have with "manspreading".

>You are, factually, an asshole if you take up other people's allocated space on a public transit
What makes it "other people's allocated space"?
What causes it to go from being space I need for my physical comfort, to space you require?

>Actually I just tested it out, my balls sit on top of my thighs when I completely close my legs. No discomfort at all. Maybe my sack is longer to be able to do that and yours can't?
Could be. Or your thighs are smaller than mine. But, mine definitely don't go above.

>Do you disagree? Do you actually think that you should be able to take up part of the legroom of the women seated next to you? If not, what are we even arguing about?
To a degree, yes.
I think I should do what I can to be nice, in so far as it doesn't directly hurt me. A handful of inches, at best, is not something I am going to consider a major problem, regardless of how packed it is. And, her 'legroom', unless she's quite obese, is going to require a fair bit less than me, anyway.

>That's what I mean by cherry picking and strawmanning
Well, you probably shouldn't say that, then, because it's quite obviously not.
The reason I point to them'd be because they are present and loud enough that they do seem to actively push major public dialogue and often legislation.
Hell, this entire conversation wouldn't've happened were it not for them, frankly.
I understand that they're quite likely a 'minority', and that's perfectly fine if you dislike them being brought up, as someone who [I presume] would identify as a feminist.
The problem is, they seem to be the most vocal, most viable, and most active subset who, 'least as far as I can see, seem to also make the most changes.
So, for me, they seem an obvious group to target. If Nazis were pushing legislation, company changes, or large-scale dialogue, I'd be talking about them, too.

And of course, there's also the issue that you and I do not agree on what is a 'legitimate issue' in this particular context.

>Because when it is full, we are all given a certain amount of equal space
The landwhale down the street takes the seats of three.
Is that unreasonable?

I'd say it's annoying, by all means, but I'd never call it a case of 'assholery'.
>What is supposed to happen? Whoever has the most powerful thighs gets to push them out and the beta males suffer crushed balls?
Most likely, since as said the space required is not that significant, if they're sitting shoulder-to-shoulder, they've already got the space required.
If you've somehow got a group of stickbois all 6 ft, but only a small amount of pounds, then maybe you'd see issue. I imagine people'd adjust as best they could, or stand.
Again, it doesn't require that much space. For me, it's a little more than a fists' space.

> In that case, as a very large and broad man, do I get to take up extra portions of your space because I'm otherwise more discomforted having equal proportions?
Obviously. You physically have to. Would you deny that you take up more space than a 100pound stickboi?
Do you expect to sit sideways, somehow, in order to match his space?

Same applies for tall people, for that matter. If you're 6'6", I'm sure as hell not about to call you an asshole for asking for the isle seat.
Your legs just do not fit in normal people spacing.
> I doubt you would agree to letting me stick my elbows out into your sides so that I wouldn't be discomforted, would you?
I wouldn't like it, but, if it is what the physical limitations require, it is what the limitations require.
I've been on planes where this has been true.
The guy tried to adjust as best he could, but, fact was, his shoulders were well into mine, and neither of our arms could find good spacing.

 No.1334

>>1333
>yet I've not seen anything ever said about it, no insistence that "women correct their behavior
Well there are two out of two of us that agree that women should correct that behavior, so maybe you're wrong about that. Have you ever tried asking a woman to move her purse? If she doesn't comply, you have my permission to bitch her out.

>What makes it "other people's allocated space"?
>What causes it to go from being space I need for my physical comfort, to space you require?
They paid as much as you to be on that transit. You pay X to be on a bus, you get Y amount of space, same as everyone else. This is weird that I have to explain something so basic right now.

>To a degree, yes.
Well, there's no polite way to say it. If you think you get to take from others paid for transit space for your own personal gain, you are an asshole. I'm not trying to be aggressive or mean about it, that's just the truth. If that's your position, you're an entitled jerk.

>The landwhale down the street takes the seats of three.
>Is that unreasonable?
I would say no, it's not in fact reasonable. They should have to pay for three seats. That's how it works on an airline. Probably not how it works on a train or bus unfortunately, but it should work that way and if you want to advocate for a change, I'd back you up.

>Again, it doesn't require that much space. For me, it's a little more than a fists' space.
I have a hard time visualizing what you consider your required space. Maybe it's not even that much. Maybe we're wasting each other's time here over this. Not manspreading is not the same as having your legs completely shut. As far as I can tell, you should have plenty of room for a fist in between the thighs while having your legs in a respectable non-manspreading position. Can you post a picture of what you need for a comfy sit please.

>Do you expect to sit sideways, somehow, in order to match his space?
I don't have to match his space, please pay attention to my points. I just need to stay within bound of my allocated space that I paid for.

>Your legs just do not fit in normal people spacing.
I'm 6'4". I just have to suck it up most of the time. If I was stuck in the window or middle seat, should I be rightfully able to stretch out into the feet space of the people adjacent to me? Would you be okay if I did that to you without asking, just took it because it was easy for me?

>The guy tried to adjust as best he could, but, fact was, his shoulders were well into mine, and neither of our arms could find good spacing.
Learn to be uncomfortable more I guess. I'm very tall and broad shouldered and I manage perfectly fine to stay within my seat bounds. Usually I move my arms forward a bit and cross them if I have to. I keep my legs sometimes at weird angles to fit. That's life for a big and tall man. Sometimes people open the sun roof of their cars for me. If they can't, I find ways to cope. I guess, toughen up a little if you are having this much problem. Public transit isn't supposed to be comfy. It's supposed to be cheap. Buy a taxi or more expensive seating if you want comfy. Don't steal from other people because you're cheap but still want it all.

 No.1335

>>1334
This seems ultimately to boil down to that you and I have vastly different standards for assholish behavior, what people are owed or expected, and what punishment folk deserve for the way that they are born, it seems.

I do not think that a large person who takes up more space than another is an asshole for requiring that space.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that any who would call him an asshole are far more inconsiderate and assholish.

 No.1336

File: 1566166955957.png (45.26 KB, 300x100, 3:1, sayakou-yuri-banner.png) ImgOps Google

>>1335
>I do not think that a large person who takes up more space than another is an asshole for requiring that space.
But should the fat person be charged more if he takes up more space, when space is a limiting factor?

 No.1337

>>1336
Unless in extreme cases, I'd say no. If they literally take two seats, that's one thing, but some spillage isn't enough for me to care.
Even then, of course, they're still not an asshole.
Especially given how tight companies are making seating, as it is, in a desperate bit to extract as much profit as they possibly can.

 No.1338

>>1335
Aight. Be it as it is. This isn't the first time I've disagreed with someone. I've no problem if you throw assholish back at me, it's your opinion after all.

I dunno how big you are of course, but few are larger than me. So it seems ironic for the (probably) smaller man to be complaining about space to the large man.

 No.1339

>>1338
Call it empathy, then. As said, my main contention is the assumption of malicious dickishness, after all.
Though at 6'6" and around 200 pounds, it's fairly easy for me to empathize with people who have to take up a bit more space.

 No.1350

>>1124
>1. Women have periods, so their toilets have the potential to be more hazardous to the health.

Toilets also hold shit, which is just as, if not more, dangerous than blood. But even if that were a concern, you would have to have been doing something pretty fucking weird to that toilet to contract anything. Or have an open wound on the part of your but where you sit down, and if that's the case, wipe the seat off first.

I have never heard of a person getting sick from a toilet seat.


>Keeping Group A, which has more potential to make Group B unhealthy than Group B does to themselves, separate, is the logical thing to do.

Well actually it's not logical at all because you have a higher chance of getting sick from not washing your hands after touching a shopping cart. Should we seperate everyone in the store to their own unique bubbles as well?


>2. Keeping male/female energy separate is important for the perpetuation of the species and overall happiness. If everyone sacrificed their innate attractions for [the misguided application of] the ideal of equality, we would end up with a society that must repress their natural inclinations in the inherently private context of going about one's business in the bathroom.

I really don't think having a same sex bathroom is going to stop people from fucking or wanting children. And considering the fact that most households, and many restaurants have single sex bathrooms and it hasn't done anything, your point is kind of silly.

I don't go into the bathroom to look at people or thi k about the person in the stall next to me. I go in to piss and or shit, and then get back to whatever it was I was doing.

>3. "Gender neutral" bathrooms really only serve one type of person - a tiny minority of the population - the people who identify as gender-neutral, asexual, or non-binary. Since the vast majority of people are not any of those things, the current arrangement is best for the greatest number of people.

Well actually, like I said earlier, many places only have one gender bathroom. It hasn't changed how we view the opposite gender, and infact I would argue that having seperate sex bathrooms does instead.

 No.1381

Animal Shithouse.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]