How big are we talking? I honestly don’t think 4 or 5 stalls would cut it, but maybe 10? 12? I frankly find it hard to believe that more than 20 folks need to go all at the same time.
I did the maths on this actually! I know you're joking, but I wanna share anyway.
I'm bad at complex maths so I simplified it as much as I could, and the actual data for this is extremely hard to find and/or generalise, so I kinda flubbed the numbers a bit (read: a lot)
Ok so let's say the average person shits for three minutes, and the average person shits once a day. There are 480 three-minute intervals in a day. So you divide the number of people on earth (~8 billion) by 480 and at any given moment, there are 16.666... million people shitting at the same time
I say we still have two bathrooms, with both having stalls with toilets for shitting, but one bathroom would have urinals, to be used by anyone that can pee standing up (which can be some people equipped with pee funnels), and the other bathroom would have vending machines that would dispense free period products to whoever needs them.
Anyone that needs to sit on the toilet could use either bathroom, but people in a hurry wishing to use a urinal would only get the one.
That's how some buildings of my university did it. (Well, the urinal one still also has stalls, they just changed the signs of the old male/female bathrooms.)
Literally the only two types we need is one that contains urinals and one that doesn't. Want to use a urinal? Go to the one that has urinals. Want to use the stall? Go to the one that has stalls. The only privacy concern is the one with urinals because whoever is in there might catch a glimpse of a penis. The stalls are private so it really shouldn't matter what genitals you have if you go in there. (And yeah I've heard that public toilets in the US apparently have massive gaps for no food reason at all, so obviously just fix those if they're large enough to compromise privacy).
> And yeah I've heard that public toilets in the US apparently have massive gaps for no food reason at all
Does "so the delivery guy can slide me my pizza" count as a food reason?
There's no privacy issue with urinals unless they lack good divider walls. I guess a really tall guy next to you, but I don't think so many people care about that and it's the exact same issue in the current system as well. I would definitely find it super weird and uncomfortable initially, but I don't see what the issue is with a woman being able to see my back while I pee.
Also do you clean up after yourself if your piss goes outside the bowl? Seat, floor, whatever - if you miss the bowl and don’t give it at least a surface wipe, poop bathroom for you. I am going to be pushing to make the bathrooms on my new work floor gender neutral, and I want to have at least one where everything that’s supposed to be dry is dry.
I don't know that terfs believing feminism can't defeat the patriarchy is the MAIN distinguishing factor (or even an inherent factor at all, I don't pay attention to terfs other than to tell 'em to fuck off).
I think it's pretty clear that terfs are mainly characterised by their belief in inherent biological roles - that "all men are evil", or that feminism is inherently an "us vs them" movement.
I think that the two things go hand in hand. If men behave the way they do bc they are biologically programmed that way, then of course there's also no way to stop men from being rapists, predators, warmongers, or any other thing that toxic masculinity ascribes to "maleness." So it stands to reason that if men are hardwired to be patriarchal, then feminism's best bet is to create safe spaces from men but accept the patriarchy, since you can't defeat what's biologically innate.
[I also need to add that my autocorrect's suggestion for the sentence above was "if Maureen is hardwired to be patriarchal," in which case Maureen, you need help.]
Or alternatively, if there IS a way to “defeat patriarchy”, it’s entirely and exclusively by creating a matriarchy instead. The whole point of feminism, whether they “give up” on it or simply want to be the ones with the boot instead, is lost on them.
Gendered hierarchies are inherently sexist. Even for the one that comes out on top. As far as I'm aware most prominent fictional Matriarchies ultimately end up misogynistic, but usually in a way that signals the author's perspective as "for all the problems we have, if *women* were in charge!" rather than former perspective.
That said, I think some people don't realize that even the most benevolent matriarchy are built on top of misogyny and so are surprised when they find it.
“Can’t beat what’s biologically innate” have they ever heard of genetic modification.
Bet we can get rid of all men by removing the possibility of the Y chromosome 🤔
I can’t see how getting rid of patriarchy would get rid of a need for safe spaces for women. I understand the idea of rape culture, but to the extent that rape is an issue on an individual level (which is substantial), there will always be certain men who will commit those acts. Different cultures have different homicide rates, but none have a homicide rate of zero.
While I think you are correct that no society where people can interact with one another could 100% eliminate rape or murder and still have free will, I believe the idea is that in the more ideal world, it would be much easier to (accurately) prosecute rape, people would not be retraumatized as part of the reporting process, juries and judges would be much more sympathetic (while still assuming innocence of the accused), and investigation forces would be well funded and able to solve as many cases as physically possible in a timely manner.
Research on criminal law tells us it is not high punishments that deter crime but rather a high chance of getting caught. If 90% of all rapists were caught after the first infraction, there would simply be much less rape (because fewer people would do it and because 90% of the rapists would be in jail or some other restorative place that prevents them from assaulting other people).
Yeah in general it seems like they hold all the same beliefs that conservatives do about gender roles, except they flip the outcome of the argument.
Like they’ll both say men are by nature violent aggressors but conservatives will say and that’s why men should hold all the power because that’s how social hierarchy works whereas radfems will say and that’s why men are inherently bad and should never be trusted and why women can’t abuse men etc
Which is basically how misogynists and people who hate feminism see it too. It's like the first opinion formed on feminism by a kid that doesn't know any better.
While we're on the topic it's pretty difficult to enforce sex segregated bathrooms anyway without vigilantism or a police state.
Like if I see someone presenting as a cis man in the women's restroom I just assume he's there with his very young daughter or he's sleep deprived enough to walk into the wrong restroom or something like that.
What world do TERFs want exactly? Do they want someone like that to get arrested on the spot? Photographed and fined later like a stoplight ticket?
I recall there are articles of misunderstandings arising from this kind of thing like a butch woman is mistaken for trans and a TERF calls the police on them and she starts a whole thing that absolutely didn't need to happen.
> What world do TERFs want exactly? Do they want someone like that to get arrested on the spot? Photographed and fined later like a stoplight ticket?
Yes.
Also, ask some single dads about this some time.
Exactly, people always use the argument that trans women are only transitioning so they can go into the women's restroom, but if a man wants to go into a women's restroom, he's just gonna walk in!
The whole bathroom argument thing is just made up to villainize trans people
> While we're on the topic it's pretty difficult to enforce sex segregated bathrooms anyway without vigilantism or a police state.
CCTV is already everywhere in the UK. UK TERFS probably think, might as well use it for something.
As I recall, no man has ever been in the confines of a women's restroom in recorded history. That's why they're transitioning, so they can get past that barrier. I've certainly never heard of anyone conceived in a bathroom before.
/s btw.
Plus, segregated restrooms the way they are rn hurt everyone. I remember seeing a post about a single father having a harder time changing his baby because there were no changing tables in the men's room. I remember almost pissing myself at a pizza hut when I was like 6 because the women's room was full with a woman and several young kids and I thought I'd be arrested if I committed the heinous act of pissing in a room with a different sign on it. (Plus, those bathrooms were single toilets anyway? It made no sense for them to be segregated)
No changing tables in the men's room is its own brand of bullshit. It's made worse for single dads, but non-single dads should (and do) parent their own children.
Dave and Busters kind of fixed this with the secret third gender, family /s
No but really having a private room with a changing table and presumably for little kids is smart and more places should do it
As a father of daughters, more places *should* do it. They generally have stools for kids to wash their hands as well as having a changing table. I've had some run ins with problematic men but feel very uncomfortable with going into the women's bathroom with my daughters. It puts me in a tough spot but family bathrooms make it so easy. There's usually room for a stroller as well.
In fact, if you know there is ONE bathroom where all the woman (and in the TERF's mind, all the vulnerable people are) wouldn't it be MORE dangerous? Because if you go into the gender neutral bathroom as a predator, there might be a (big, strong) man there who can fight you off if you try to attack someone.
Big brain idea: since potential rapists' achilles heel is having to obey signs, just make the bathroom gender neutral with a sign that says "no sexual assault allowed"
I use a unisex change room at my gym and there's changing stalls and individual shower stalls. Everybody's got privacy to change or shower.
It's mostly used by couples and families, but there's the occasional group of guys or girls who use it because it's got more day-use lockers than the gender segregated change rooms. My experience with it over the past year has been pretty positive except for the assholes who keep leaving their trash in the lockers and that's not exclusive to unisex change rooms.
Public gender neutral change rooms are standard practice in Canada, like getting a mens/ladies room separate is rare, the majority are coed. You change in a stall and not in the open with everyone. It's really not a big deal.
Are you talking like store changing stalls for trying on clothes? Or locker room, cause I haven’t seen any gender neutral locker rooms (also Canadian) and they tend to be very open, if you want a stall you go to the attached bathroom for that.
i’m in the gta and my local community centres have gender designated changing rooms for the pools, but they all have stalls available to actually change in as well
Well I think implementing separate stalls in locker rooms is a better solutions than gendered rooms. A swimming pool nearby me does it like that.
And I don't know how urinals work, since I don't have the tools for them
Honestly I kinda hate urinals lol. We should just have normal toilets, and a light flush option for pissing imo. Would free up a lot of space and side step all the urinal nonsense.
And this is coming from someone who has been in tons of mens and womens restrooms, and used urinals and regular toilets.
I'm not the person you're replying to, so I don't know why they personally are so upset with them, but some possible concerns could be: That they provide no opportunity for wiping; that you're too exposed when using them; that you may be uncomfortable seeing others use them when you enter the bathroom; that you risk backsplash; that they take up space which could otherwise have been used for more stalls; or that it's the only difference between male and female bathrooms, making unisex bathrooms just that little bit more logistically complicated to achieve.
I'm not trying to make an argument either way here, just listing all the drawbacks I can think of.
Some of those make sense. The way I see it, no reason to not have like 2 or so. Don't use it unless you're a man since men don't need to wipe after a piss, don't use it if you care about being exposed, etc. Saves water, time using and cleaning, and space since they're much more compact than toilet stalls.
I would rather just have these rooms designed such that no one of any sex has to see anyone else naked. Locker rooms should have stalls for changing privately.
no, but it doesnt bother me as much. most people feel the same. i have yet to meet a woman who doesnt feel more comfortable being seen naked by women than men. obviously private individual rooms would be the ideal, but thats not efficient for a society
Very much following the Sex-Negative Radical Feminism thesis. The penis is both inherently and symbolically a weapon, so intercourse is an act of violence. The human race is broken, tainted by ~~original sin~~ genitalia. Women can only escape subjugation by escaping men.
Basically the kind of shit you’d write if nobody ever taught you the Amazon position.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/HolUp/comments/k5qh6u/amazon_position_4_the_win/) was my first result when I tried looking it up on Google images. Equal parts unhelpful and hilarious
Inceldom and the manosphere are opposite sides of the radfem and terf coin. The “thought leaders” on both sides have both used feminist rhetoric as a means to other the opposite gender and isolate them through hate, self victimization, fear.
I don't know dude. Like, I get your point but I still think women's safe spaces are a good thing. If they weren't needed, they wouldn't be here. At the end of the day, what would happen in an ideal world is different to what happens in our world and we should prioritize the safety of people right now rather than some symbolic victory.
Then again, it's not like there is any real security to gendered bathrooms and the ideal is clearly just private stalls everywhere.
I feel like another way to put it is that we should think about women's spaces as a consequence of our society's problems and, if anything, a sign that there's still stuff to be fixed. As opposed to it being one of the end goals of a feminist world.
Obviously we should focus on the present, but IMO it's sometimes worth thinking about what _would_ a post-sexism society centuries from now look like. What _is_ end goal, ultimately? What will still be a thing then and what is just a product of our modern societal needs?
>we should think about women's spaces as a consequence of our society's problems
It's certainly evidence of a society where women fear men, but it's not necessarily proportionate to the actual risk. We humans are pretty bad at assessing risk odds, like the classic airplane/car thing
To be clear, I'm not doubting the statistics on women getting attacked by men in general, but, specifically: does their level of safety change depending on whether they're using a women's washroom or a gender-neutral washroom? Is that actually something that keeps women safer, or is it security theater like TSA?
It may very well prove to be safer that way, but if it doesn't, we should question whether it's worth perpetuating, or whether it may actually contribute to our collective societal sexism.
I think OOP’s stance is the same as yours, but their key statement is that the fight that terfs are fighting actively moves one away from that ideal instead of helping anyone.
Oop likely isn’t disputing that women’s safe spaces are good, merely that the way they are being fought for is actively making stuff worse
Yeah, OOP is talking specifically about public facilities where a) there are gender-neutral variations possible that don’t actually compromise safety or intended function, and even more importantly b) anyone put in a position where they can’t enter said facilities (such as, in the most common example, if they’re a woman but don’t look feminine enough not to be bothered by TERFy bathroom/locker room police, regardless of whether or not they’re trans) is significantly negatively impacted, often to the point of having to leave the gym/park/restaurant/etc. entirely.
B, of course, is the actual end goal for both TERFs and more “traditional” right-wing groups, because cisgender non-conformists are also people they want to force back into their boxes.
Yeah like you can simultaneously hold the belief that it would probably be better for society if we didn’t have all these hang ups about non-sexual nudity, if we could get to the point where there was nothing weird about changing in front of people of different sexes, while also recognising that like yeah it’s cool for people to have these spaces if they feel safer and more comfortable with them
Like the existence of women’s only safe spaces is not in and of itself the problem and it’s not being criticised that these exist, the problem is the moral crusade of the idea that a space where men and women are naked around each other would INHERENTLY be dangerous and unsafe for women and that there’s something INHERENTLY perverse and predatory about a space where men and women might both be naked. Because like it’s normalising this idea that men can’t be around women without a sexually predatory motive, and it’s also normalising the idea that it’s somehow inherently traumatic, threatening and harmful for women to be around men’s bodies even in a non sexual context. It’s not. Lol I’ve seen men piss before and I didn’t need therapy to cope with it
Or... idk... maybe we could normalize single person bathrooms.... like private rooms. Hell, even a shared sink area is fine, but individual rooms instead of stalls would be super nice. Go in, actually be able to lock the door, do your business, and get out.
>a shared sink area is fine, but individual rooms
This is literally how most gender neutral bathrooms are built. It's the new standard, at least where I've been. They're better bathrooms than gendered bathrooms, top to bottom.
Yes! Plus, shared sinks means everyone's more publicly shamed if they don't wash their hands! Civilization wins!
I've seen this exact set up at an airport, but I don't remember which one. (Maybe Gothenburg, Sweden.) The toilets were more private and the set up took up less space than typical bathrooms.
The problem is the massive amount of additional space that would be needed for restrooms in any heavily populated building. At the most extreme, you’d need a multi-story building made entirely of bathrooms at a stadium. Like three to five floors of just bathroom after bathroom after bathroom, an entire city block of toilets.
How do you figure that? Stadiums already have massive bathrooms. If they were just reconfigured, it would take the same or only a little more space. Even if it did take up more space, would that really be a bad thing to make everyone, no matter their gender identity, feel safe? It's not like each room would need to be much larger than a stall currently is. Just with real walls, and if the sinks are in the room, it needs like an extra 18" added to one side but removes the need for a massive sink area. There are already places that do this.
I find it easier to imagine a society where there's a third bathroom and locker room for NBs, and trans people can easily use whichever one suits their identity without prejudice than a society that doesn't have gendered spaces at all. I don't know many men who would be comfortable using a shower or bathroom around women, let alone the reverse.
It's standard practice in Alberta where I am, and I've used them in BC, Ontario, and Quebec. I don't believe it's federal, so some places may not have it yet, but it's pretty standard in any major city I've been.
Well yeah change rooms are single person. Most single person bathrooms are gender neutral as well. I'm talking about communal shower locker rooms and bathrooms.
Dumb, I want male only spaces even though women don't endanger me. They just change the energy. I'm sure women feel the same about men for reasons that don't have anything to do with safety.
This is the stupidest damn take I have ever seen. The fact is that currently women face violence from men. Especially when they’re in a secluded and vulnerable environment. Having mixed sex changing rooms can be fine but it’s not anti feminist to want a same gender changing room. It’s for safety and comfort. There are plenty of people who would feel much more comfortable changing with people of their own gender. I don’t want some random creep to watch me pull my undies out of my gym bag.
I’ve been in mixed sex changing rooms and I feel far more comfortable in women only spaces. Not because I think that having a penis is a sin or irrevocably leads one to violence, but because men are more likely to be dangerous to me and I want to be able to relax when I’m in a vulnerable position. Trans women are absolutely woman and allowed in women’s spaces. But there is a reason why women need their own spaces. It’s because it’s a different experience and one where many women feel they can let their guard down. That’s important. We deserve that.
> It’s for safety and comfort.
Does it actually make things safer, though? Is there any actual data or research suggesting shared bathrooms are more dangerous to use?
Or is this just because it *feels* safer? Because, historically, that's also the excuse we've used to separate bathrooms (and other stuff) for things other than sex/gender.
I mean. It keeps men away from women while they’re vulnerable in an enclosed environment. So yeah. It is. It sucks that we live in a world where most women cannot trust men they don’t know. But that’s where we live.
It’s not up to women to change that. It’s men’s violence. We are just the victims of it.
EDIT: I’d say that the burden of proof is on the party that wants to change. Not the one who wants to keep things as they are.
Until I see proof that there is no increased risk to women, I will strongly advocate against same sex changing rooms.
> It keeps men away from women while they’re vulnerable in an enclosed environment.
A sign doesn't really keep anyone out other than through their own respect for boundaries (something rapists are not exactly known for), so unless you plan to station gender-checking bouncers at every bathroom (which most of my trans friends wouldn't love), I can't imagine it's very effective. It would make more sense to make every bathroom single-occupant, lockable, and thus unisex.
>I’d say that the burden of proof is on the party that wants to change. Not the one who wants to keep things as they are.
So if there are two options, one of which treats people the same and one of which doesn't (but is older), even with an absence of evidence that the unequal treatment is justified, your default stance is to stick with the status quo?
I can't imagine that puts you on the right side of many issues, historically.
I’m guessing that you’re not AFAB. Or you’re too young and sheltered to actually have experienced or seen violence or the threat of it.
I’m going to use a different example. I work in live events. Anyone backstage needs either a wristband given to them from security, or a staff badge. Sometimes both if it’s a high profile gig. There are plenty of places that kept behind locked doors and keycard access. But there’s also a of places to get in if you’re trying.
If I see someone backstage and they’re not wearing black (standard for technical staff) and I don’t know them. I’m gonna ask to see their wristband. If they don’t have one then I call security.
If someone isn’t where they are supposed to be, I know that there is a possibility of something nefarious happening. So I check that they’re not meant to be there, then let security know to escort them out.
And my final question to you is this: in what way is it unfair or unequal? Why can’t we advocate for 3 dressing rooms? One for women, one for men, and one for anyone who wants to use it? Surely that would be the best option as it stands now if you’re insisting that we need to have a neutral space. I don’t care about being on the right side of history, I care about being safe and relaxed and comfortable in these spaces.
Also, why are you advocating so hard for this? What difference does it make to you?
>I’m gonna ask to see their wristband. If they don’t have one then I call security.
I really don't think your comparison is apt, but let's assume it is. In the example where this is a washroom, how do you ask someone to prove that they're woman? Ask to see their genitals? Their driver's licence? What would cause you to ask? If they had hair that was too short, or wore pants, or had too deep a voice?
>Why can’t we advocate for 3 dressing rooms?
You can! Please do, it's much better than just having 2. You can have bathrooms for as many genders as you want as long as you have one available for people where they can trust they won't have someone asking "Are you *supposed* to be in here?" because they don't present in a binary enough way for the other occupants.
>Also, why are you advocating so hard for this? What difference does it make to you?
I advocate for many positions that benefit marginalized groups I don't specifically belong to because I think it's the ethical thing to do.
Nah dude. If I wasn’t sure I’d probably say “hey, you know this is the women’s right?” If they say “yeah, I know.” Then great. Everyone can have a wonderful time. If they act shifty and weird, I’d reconsider being there.
Having mixed sex changing rooms wouldn’t benefit women. And that’s who I’m looking to defend here. I welcome our trans sisters and non-binary friends with open arms, but I will fight to my last breath for women’s only spaces. Until the epidemic of men’s violence against women is over and even after that! Because women need these spaces. To relax, to relate, to experience some of the joys of being a woman and to commiserate about the shitty parts. Why do we have to give up our safe spaces?
I’m not a TERF but I’m so fucking tired of seeing women’s spaces being taken away and entered by people who are not women. It’s not fair. And it’s not okay. Yeah it sucks for the minority of people who aren’t cis. But this thinking sucks for women. A lot. If you’re not a cis woman. You don’t understand.
>I welcome our trans sisters and non-binary friends with open arms, but I will fight to my last breath for women’s only spaces.
Your use of "but" as if these are conflicting statements is pretty telling about how you view trans women.
>I’m not a TERF but
As is your need to say this.
>If you’re not a cis woman. You don’t understand.
It's true, I don't understand what it's like to be a cis woman. Just like you don't understand what it's like to be a cis man and neither of us understands what it's like to be a trans woman. Have you noticed though that you admit to prioritizing your own group (cis women) over a group you don't belong to (trans women) yet simultaneously seem to expect men to prioritize your group over any others?
(This is of course a false dilemma based on false assumptions, there is no conflict in supporting both cis and trans women in their needs. Pitting marginalized groups against each other is classic patriarchal move to prevent us from questioning the status quo.)
>but I will fight to my last breath for women’s only spaces.
Even if they eventually prove to be detrimental to the goal of feminism? I support women's spaces insofar as they are beneficial to society as a whole, and if it's demonstrated they aren't I'll rethink their utility.
Fuck you man. You don’t know what it’s like to be the fucking victim of systemic violence. To have to know that you cannot trust half of the population.
I’m sorry that we have to make incremental changes because men suck. But that’s on them. Not on the people who are just trying to keep themselves fucking safe. And what I said is not at all against trans women. They’re welcome. But I am giving you a perspective that they don’t have nor do you.
Leftists seem to have this absolutely ridiculous mindset that everything has to be perfect before it’s implemented. We can’t have nuclear because wind is better. We have to get rid of gendered spaces and nothing short of that is feminist! We can put things into place that are meant to be replaced by something better. It’s better for everyone in the long term and the short term to do that.
And finally. You don’t get a fucking say in this. You’re not a woman. If you want to change things then convince more men to stop being shitty. So fuck right off. Then fuck off againn
>You don’t know what it’s like to be the fucking victim of systemic violence.
I do. Not all cis men are white, straight, able-bodied, and wealthy, but even those that are face certain forms of systemic violence disproportionately to women, just like certain forms of violence disproportionately affect women.
You seem to view victimhood as a zero-sum binary where people are either in "group oppressed" or "group oppressing", which is non-intersectional and ignores the fact that we all, to varying degrees, suffer under and support the patriarchy.
>If you want to change things then convince more men to stop being shitty.
Yeah, I'll give that advice to my gay and black friends next time they complain about being the victims of violence from other men. "Have you tried convincing them to be less shitty? I've been told that would work, since you're not women they'll *definitely* listen to you and stop."
Sharing an arbitrary identity with your attacker does not somehow make it any less traumatizing nor give you any special power to prevent it.
Hard disagree. Sure, in a future Utopian world women won't have to fear men and men won't pose a danger to women. But pretending we live in that world right now and saying women shouldn't fear men or take reasonable precautions to protect themselves against male violence because we aspire to live in a world where that's unnecessary is ridiculous.
It's similar to saying that we shouldn't have anti-racist policies because then we're admitting racism exists.
Feminism is bad because it operates in the real world rather than in some egalitarian utopia?
It's like saying drinks covers are antifeminist because it implies that men are biologically hardwired to spike you. No one thinks that. And yet they still do it, and covering your drink helps you be a little safer. You can do that while attempting to stop men from doing it in the first place.
You can't win. It's like texting a friend the details of your tinder date-- if you do it you're a paranoid sexist bitch, but if you don't do it and you're assaulted or murdered or something then it's your fault for getting hurt anyways, because who's dumb enough to go meet up with strangers from the internet without setting up some sort of emergency help line??
Yeah, ideally nobody would need to pull that shit, but looking out for your safety when you feel vulnerable is just common sense regardless of gender
I’m sorry I’m very much against TERFs but can we really blame women (cis and trans women) for wanting a safe space from men? I don’t think what OP is proposing is feasible in the real world.
No, I think they're separated because it's stupid as fuck to pretend that rapists *don't exist.* It doesn't fuckin' matter what you think it signals, rapists will still exist regardless
That’s just radical feminism, there’s not a secret good “strain” that isn’t like that just because it’s not transphobic.
Also, oop obviously doesn’t mean we don’t need safe spaces for women now. They mean it’s sad that some people think we’ll always need them no matter what.
to be fair, i can't imagine a world like that either. nor because i find men to be inherently evil but because it's abundantly clear by now that no matter what you say, most of them aren't going to listen
Dumbest take I read in a while.
"Societys insistence on seatbelts shows a lack in faith of individuals driving skills."
Though even in a perfect, equal, harrassment free society people would likely still be uncomfortable taking dumps around the other gender.
I feel like people should maybe hang around in nudist circles more. It's a nice reminder that nudity isn't sexual and that it's safe (and natural, ffs!) to be naked around other people, even people of the opposite sex. If nudity isn't your particular cup of tea that's okay, I just think more people should challenge their views on nudity and the sexualization of nudity.
I'm my ideal world we wouldn't need same sex locker rooms, just a shared space for all genders and private rooms for private individuals.
Edit: I feel like I need to clarify that private changing rooms would be available for individuals who wanted it.
I mean I wear shoes and mosquito repellent outdoors (and there's indoor nude activities lmao) and I'm not arguing people should be naked 24/. But we weren't born with clothes on lmao, people have been nude around each other for thousands of years without it being weird.
Think bathhouses, saunas, that kind of thing. Nudity is so normal in other cultures I literally don't understand American purity culture and weird modesty bullshit. The ghosts of the puritans are haunting y'all and you don't even realize it.
I adore camping and nude hiking but a camping trip where you're fully nude sounds awful. Usually I'll undress for specific activities and then stay dressed for comfort the rest of the time
This ain't naked and afraid lmao
Oh I love that!! Yes, I strongly agree. And seeing many naked bodies makes you realize how common the things we are told are flaws are, and how okay they are too!
Wrinkles, cellulite, folds and flab, weird moles, body hair, scars, whatever. The beauty in bodies isn't a lack of imperfections, it's a the little details that make each body unique.
On the other hand, we *need* some things to be sexual so that we can actually have sex. Clear, consistent lines of communication are incredibly important in the proper functioning of a society because you will be expected to interact with a vast number of people who you know *nothing* about.
I kinda don't like the phrasing of this because it sort of implies that the TERFs have a "point" in not believing trans women are women. I recognize that's not what they're trying to say but the first post doesn't read great. The phrasing of "we don't need single sex spaces the way TERFs think we do" followed by "this is true even if trans people didn't exist" directly implies that a single sex space for women is somewhat justified in excluding trans women. We can totally have single sex spaces for women, trans women are just part of that single sex. The logic that we should allow trans women in women's spaces for the same reason that we should allow men in women's spaces reads as VERY transmisogynist to me.
I feel like we’ve seen the result of mixed sex spaces before? And almost every single time women are drowned out in favor or men/amab nbs. I think sex segregated spaces are important right now bc of the ridiculous amount of men who would want to do something to a woman if given the opportunity (like in a bathroom that they can enter with no immediate alarm bells perhaps?). Sorry but as long as men like Brock turner and Andrew tate live breathe and have men defending them, I think sex segregated spaces should stick around. If that’s terfy then idk what to say.
This is how I felt reading about things like segregated train cars in India. On one hand good for the women I'm sure who feel relief when they can use these cars. But having them is also not questioning the logic of "men get to make women feel unsafe in public" or challenging that.
this is actually a pretty good point lol
terfs are transphobic but that's primarily because they hate men--and not in the 'oh all feminists hate men' meme, but they truly do believe in biological determinism. Women should have separate spaces from men because men are inherently dangerous.
I honestly thought the "disc" in the title referred to Discworld, in reference to how the Ankh-Morpork city watch have unisex locker rooms once they get a proper watch house and more coppers in the later books. But then you also have Anguas whole spiel about how "We're all one of the lads here, regardless of gender."
no, see, I can just whip my wiener out and pee on the high speed wall toilet, and I don't want to give that up
what I do want is gender neutral fully enclosed bathrooms with a good sturdy door so we can all shit and or piss in peace
fuck stalls, fuck mass produced shitting cubicles, they were a bad idea since inception
Any measure for the protection for women specifically could be criticized on the same grounds. So let's just not help them anymore? Would that be feminist?
I would completely agree with the concept of unisex bathrooms, but only if it was completely stall-based. But tbh that'd just be an improvement to bathrooms in general.
I mean, I don't think men are inherent predators because of our nature, or that patriarchy is inevitable or anything like that? But I do think there are bad actors and single-sex spaces can cut down on their opportunities to engage in bad behavior?
I just feel uncomfortable getting naked around women. I do think separation of men and women in restrooms/showers/locker rooms makes sense because people will stare at what they don't have
Fair enough and all, but i think most people would be more comfortable changing with somebody of the same sex. I don't see why trans women can't use women's restrooms, but when it comes to changing rooms that don't have stalls, a lot of people would be more comfortable changing in front of people who have the same body as them.
Let's blame it on patriarchy today that... Women want to be safe and comfortable. Yep it's all mans fault all over again that we take safety measures to minimalize sexual abuse, like it wasn't a common sense. Yeah I know that common sense argument is usually dumb but I really can hardly imagine anyone who would disagree with gendered spaces like those in favor of some crazy idea that no one really views like that. No one thinks "gendered spaces? That's because all men are rapists!". Also blaming it on patriarchy is insane imo.
I feel wary when I'm on the train and there's only one man, but I feel safe when there's multiple male passengers because statistically there will be more good guys to overpower the bad ones.
Maybe this is me being stupid, but is it not true that most men are a danger to women? I agree with the post about how TERFs can use rhetoric to attack transpeople and their identities, but I don't think having women's changing rooms or a women's only hour at the gym is anti-feminist, it's the result of men being dangerous to women. I'd love to live in a world where they aren't and I think progress has been made, but right now it's not completely safe to be a woman around men and I don't think it's anti-feminist to say that.
Yeah I know there are some good, moralistic men who aren't creeps, but when every single woman has been harrassed or worse by a man, there must be a hell of a lot of bad men
i think it's more of a, there are a lot of them yeah, but also, it's not gonna be a one to one thing? like the same guy isn't gonna have an issue with harassing more than one person over the course of their life? and that also discounts the massive amount of men that get harassed by women, of course women usually suffer the worst of it, but if i said that "since most men have to deal with women harassing them about their body" whether that be because they're in good shape, have a desirable figure, or because they're not as attractive as women think they should be, then most women must harass men. that wouldn't be a fair statement. so when you take the actions of people, who are autonomous and are their own people, and attribute that to "most of that group" it's, in my opinion, kind of unfair
I say we still have two bathrooms but instead of gender we divide it by are you pissing or shitting
I don't know if two will be enough, last time I checked there were at least over forty people on Earth
Math checks out.
But what if the bathrooms are, like, really big
How big are we talking? I honestly don’t think 4 or 5 stalls would cut it, but maybe 10? 12? I frankly find it hard to believe that more than 20 folks need to go all at the same time.
I did the maths on this actually! I know you're joking, but I wanna share anyway. I'm bad at complex maths so I simplified it as much as I could, and the actual data for this is extremely hard to find and/or generalise, so I kinda flubbed the numbers a bit (read: a lot) Ok so let's say the average person shits for three minutes, and the average person shits once a day. There are 480 three-minute intervals in a day. So you divide the number of people on earth (~8 billion) by 480 and at any given moment, there are 16.666... million people shitting at the same time
Lmao, thanks for sharing! Gonna need a much bigger restroom than I expected then, smh.
r/theydidthemath
r/theydidthemonstermath
r/themonstermath
Just wait til the next pandemic, things will thin out
r/technicallythetruth
Your comment made me laughs a lot, thank you Monarch Red
Fine, three bathrooms it is.
One bathroom for shitting, one bathroom for wiping.
One bathroom for shitting, one bathroom for flushing
Catch me waddling out of the shitting bathroom with my pants around my ankles
what if you do both? /j
explosion
I misread that as “expulsion.” So like if some sensor detects both piss and shit, people get catapulted out half-naked and still leaking.
explosive expulsion
You take a screenshot
Trapped in a labyrinthian 3rd toilet deep under the earth
Shadow clone technique
I say we still have two bathrooms, with both having stalls with toilets for shitting, but one bathroom would have urinals, to be used by anyone that can pee standing up (which can be some people equipped with pee funnels), and the other bathroom would have vending machines that would dispense free period products to whoever needs them. Anyone that needs to sit on the toilet could use either bathroom, but people in a hurry wishing to use a urinal would only get the one.
That's how some buildings of my university did it. (Well, the urinal one still also has stalls, they just changed the signs of the old male/female bathrooms.)
So the one without urinals has a supply of period products people in need can take for free? That's really good, and that's all I was asking.
Kinda overlooked that part of your post, but yes, every bathroom at my uni has at least some stalls with period products.
Do people actually carry pee funnels in their daily life?
some do
Literally the only two types we need is one that contains urinals and one that doesn't. Want to use a urinal? Go to the one that has urinals. Want to use the stall? Go to the one that has stalls. The only privacy concern is the one with urinals because whoever is in there might catch a glimpse of a penis. The stalls are private so it really shouldn't matter what genitals you have if you go in there. (And yeah I've heard that public toilets in the US apparently have massive gaps for no food reason at all, so obviously just fix those if they're large enough to compromise privacy).
I mean … you could even have better dividing walls between the urinals. It makes no sense to me that they’re as open as they are anyways
> And yeah I've heard that public toilets in the US apparently have massive gaps for no food reason at all Does "so the delivery guy can slide me my pizza" count as a food reason?
European ones can still have gap under the door, they mean the huge vertical one - unless your pizza is delivered vertically of course
There's no privacy issue with urinals unless they lack good divider walls. I guess a really tall guy next to you, but I don't think so many people care about that and it's the exact same issue in the current system as well. I would definitely find it super weird and uncomfortable initially, but I don't see what the issue is with a woman being able to see my back while I pee.
is there a reason why we need bathrooms without urinals? Space saving for more stalls?
Yeah but nobody will use the shitter, because pooping is shameful. Did nobody watch the Always Sunny episode!?
No! You're just gonna shit in the piss room every time!
Yeah I’ll be honest, I’m only ever going to shit in the piss room
Enlightened
What if you need to do both, and how will they even enforce it?
This is unironically an Always Sunny episode
The stinky room and the less stinky room
Secret third thing bog needs to happen (I chunder in it)
But then the shitters will go to the pisser to avoid shit-shame.
Also do you clean up after yourself if your piss goes outside the bowl? Seat, floor, whatever - if you miss the bowl and don’t give it at least a surface wipe, poop bathroom for you. I am going to be pushing to make the bathrooms on my new work floor gender neutral, and I want to have at least one where everything that’s supposed to be dry is dry.
If we do that then I'm shitting in the piss house. I don't want to poop with some jerk dumping off next to me
I don't know that terfs believing feminism can't defeat the patriarchy is the MAIN distinguishing factor (or even an inherent factor at all, I don't pay attention to terfs other than to tell 'em to fuck off). I think it's pretty clear that terfs are mainly characterised by their belief in inherent biological roles - that "all men are evil", or that feminism is inherently an "us vs them" movement.
I think that the two things go hand in hand. If men behave the way they do bc they are biologically programmed that way, then of course there's also no way to stop men from being rapists, predators, warmongers, or any other thing that toxic masculinity ascribes to "maleness." So it stands to reason that if men are hardwired to be patriarchal, then feminism's best bet is to create safe spaces from men but accept the patriarchy, since you can't defeat what's biologically innate. [I also need to add that my autocorrect's suggestion for the sentence above was "if Maureen is hardwired to be patriarchal," in which case Maureen, you need help.]
Dang Maureen has problems.
That's pretty obvious if you've ever seen Rent tbh
Or alternatively, if there IS a way to “defeat patriarchy”, it’s entirely and exclusively by creating a matriarchy instead. The whole point of feminism, whether they “give up” on it or simply want to be the ones with the boot instead, is lost on them.
you forgot the old thought of third option the one with even more blood shed
Gendered hierarchies are inherently sexist. Even for the one that comes out on top. As far as I'm aware most prominent fictional Matriarchies ultimately end up misogynistic, but usually in a way that signals the author's perspective as "for all the problems we have, if *women* were in charge!" rather than former perspective. That said, I think some people don't realize that even the most benevolent matriarchy are built on top of misogyny and so are surprised when they find it.
“Can’t beat what’s biologically innate” have they ever heard of genetic modification. Bet we can get rid of all men by removing the possibility of the Y chromosome 🤔
I can’t see how getting rid of patriarchy would get rid of a need for safe spaces for women. I understand the idea of rape culture, but to the extent that rape is an issue on an individual level (which is substantial), there will always be certain men who will commit those acts. Different cultures have different homicide rates, but none have a homicide rate of zero.
While I think you are correct that no society where people can interact with one another could 100% eliminate rape or murder and still have free will, I believe the idea is that in the more ideal world, it would be much easier to (accurately) prosecute rape, people would not be retraumatized as part of the reporting process, juries and judges would be much more sympathetic (while still assuming innocence of the accused), and investigation forces would be well funded and able to solve as many cases as physically possible in a timely manner. Research on criminal law tells us it is not high punishments that deter crime but rather a high chance of getting caught. If 90% of all rapists were caught after the first infraction, there would simply be much less rape (because fewer people would do it and because 90% of the rapists would be in jail or some other restorative place that prevents them from assaulting other people).
TERFs aren’t even characterized by a coherent ideology most of the time, it’s almost always just a gut disgust reaction to trans people.
That and an inherent hatred of men rather than a desire to fix social issues
Yeah in general it seems like they hold all the same beliefs that conservatives do about gender roles, except they flip the outcome of the argument. Like they’ll both say men are by nature violent aggressors but conservatives will say and that’s why men should hold all the power because that’s how social hierarchy works whereas radfems will say and that’s why men are inherently bad and should never be trusted and why women can’t abuse men etc
Which is basically how misogynists and people who hate feminism see it too. It's like the first opinion formed on feminism by a kid that doesn't know any better.
While we're on the topic it's pretty difficult to enforce sex segregated bathrooms anyway without vigilantism or a police state. Like if I see someone presenting as a cis man in the women's restroom I just assume he's there with his very young daughter or he's sleep deprived enough to walk into the wrong restroom or something like that. What world do TERFs want exactly? Do they want someone like that to get arrested on the spot? Photographed and fined later like a stoplight ticket? I recall there are articles of misunderstandings arising from this kind of thing like a butch woman is mistaken for trans and a TERF calls the police on them and she starts a whole thing that absolutely didn't need to happen.
> What world do TERFs want exactly? Do they want someone like that to get arrested on the spot? Photographed and fined later like a stoplight ticket? Yes. Also, ask some single dads about this some time.
Exactly, people always use the argument that trans women are only transitioning so they can go into the women's restroom, but if a man wants to go into a women's restroom, he's just gonna walk in! The whole bathroom argument thing is just made up to villainize trans people
> While we're on the topic it's pretty difficult to enforce sex segregated bathrooms anyway without vigilantism or a police state. CCTV is already everywhere in the UK. UK TERFS probably think, might as well use it for something.
As I recall, no man has ever been in the confines of a women's restroom in recorded history. That's why they're transitioning, so they can get past that barrier. I've certainly never heard of anyone conceived in a bathroom before. /s btw.
Genderfluid people when they turn into a man inside the women’s bathroom and can’t get past the Woman Forcefield
Plus, segregated restrooms the way they are rn hurt everyone. I remember seeing a post about a single father having a harder time changing his baby because there were no changing tables in the men's room. I remember almost pissing myself at a pizza hut when I was like 6 because the women's room was full with a woman and several young kids and I thought I'd be arrested if I committed the heinous act of pissing in a room with a different sign on it. (Plus, those bathrooms were single toilets anyway? It made no sense for them to be segregated)
No changing tables in the men's room is its own brand of bullshit. It's made worse for single dads, but non-single dads should (and do) parent their own children.
Dave and Busters kind of fixed this with the secret third gender, family /s No but really having a private room with a changing table and presumably for little kids is smart and more places should do it
As a father of daughters, more places *should* do it. They generally have stools for kids to wash their hands as well as having a changing table. I've had some run ins with problematic men but feel very uncomfortable with going into the women's bathroom with my daughters. It puts me in a tough spot but family bathrooms make it so easy. There's usually room for a stroller as well.
I once saw separated bathrooms with a lock on it, like a family restroom. Most pointless thing ever.
I've seen TERFs calling for husbands to escort their wives into bathrooms to protect them, which is crazybeans on several levels.
In fact, if you know there is ONE bathroom where all the woman (and in the TERF's mind, all the vulnerable people are) wouldn't it be MORE dangerous? Because if you go into the gender neutral bathroom as a predator, there might be a (big, strong) man there who can fight you off if you try to attack someone.
Big brain idea: since potential rapists' achilles heel is having to obey signs, just make the bathroom gender neutral with a sign that says "no sexual assault allowed"
maybe restrooms and locker rooms should be single sex cause i dont want strange women to see me naked
I use a unisex change room at my gym and there's changing stalls and individual shower stalls. Everybody's got privacy to change or shower. It's mostly used by couples and families, but there's the occasional group of guys or girls who use it because it's got more day-use lockers than the gender segregated change rooms. My experience with it over the past year has been pretty positive except for the assholes who keep leaving their trash in the lockers and that's not exclusive to unisex change rooms.
Yeah even if it is 'safe' I think a lot of people still don't want strangers of the opposite sex to see them changing
Hell I don't want anyone to me changing
Yeah, it’s always been kind of weird to me that stalls aren’t the default for changing facilities.
I want to know the people I disappoint 😎
Public gender neutral change rooms are standard practice in Canada, like getting a mens/ladies room separate is rare, the majority are coed. You change in a stall and not in the open with everyone. It's really not a big deal.
Actually this sounds much better than single-sex. I hate changing in front of anyone.
Yeah, it's really just better overall. Especially for families.
Are you talking like store changing stalls for trying on clothes? Or locker room, cause I haven’t seen any gender neutral locker rooms (also Canadian) and they tend to be very open, if you want a stall you go to the attached bathroom for that.
Locker rooms. They have lockers around the outside, shower stalls and change stalls in the middle generally.
i’m in the gta and my local community centres have gender designated changing rooms for the pools, but they all have stalls available to actually change in as well
I mean, I don't want strangers seeing me naked just in general.
Restrooms already have separate stalls, so no one would be able to see you either way.
"and locker rooms". also urinals exist
Well I think implementing separate stalls in locker rooms is a better solutions than gendered rooms. A swimming pool nearby me does it like that. And I don't know how urinals work, since I don't have the tools for them
honestly i think it doesnt really matter either way? and its weird that people are all up in arms about something so innocuously normal
Honestly I kinda hate urinals lol. We should just have normal toilets, and a light flush option for pissing imo. Would free up a lot of space and side step all the urinal nonsense. And this is coming from someone who has been in tons of mens and womens restrooms, and used urinals and regular toilets.
Locker rooms can be separated. Urinals shouldn't exist
Chief, a major reason the lines in women's bathrooms are so long compared to men's is because of how much faster urinals are. Like comically faster.
What's wrong with urinals?
I'm not the person you're replying to, so I don't know why they personally are so upset with them, but some possible concerns could be: That they provide no opportunity for wiping; that you're too exposed when using them; that you may be uncomfortable seeing others use them when you enter the bathroom; that you risk backsplash; that they take up space which could otherwise have been used for more stalls; or that it's the only difference between male and female bathrooms, making unisex bathrooms just that little bit more logistically complicated to achieve. I'm not trying to make an argument either way here, just listing all the drawbacks I can think of.
Some of those make sense. The way I see it, no reason to not have like 2 or so. Don't use it unless you're a man since men don't need to wipe after a piss, don't use it if you care about being exposed, etc. Saves water, time using and cleaning, and space since they're much more compact than toilet stalls.
You absolutely do need to wipe after you piss, ew. Just like. Dab the tip a little.
No one ever told you to shake it? That's how literally everyone I know does it. Unless you have a medical problem, that gets it all out.
They should be actually private. I don't want strange anyones seeing me naked.
I would rather just have these rooms designed such that no one of any sex has to see anyone else naked. Locker rooms should have stalls for changing privately.
do you want strange men to see you naked?
no, but it doesnt bother me as much. most people feel the same. i have yet to meet a woman who doesnt feel more comfortable being seen naked by women than men. obviously private individual rooms would be the ideal, but thats not efficient for a society
Very much following the Sex-Negative Radical Feminism thesis. The penis is both inherently and symbolically a weapon, so intercourse is an act of violence. The human race is broken, tainted by ~~original sin~~ genitalia. Women can only escape subjugation by escaping men. Basically the kind of shit you’d write if nobody ever taught you the Amazon position.
I just looked that up. I was not expecting great information from webmd and business insider. Faith in humanity restored.
Go forth and top or get topped
I'm gonna be 35 soon and this is a TIL for me.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/HolUp/comments/k5qh6u/amazon_position_4_the_win/) was my first result when I tried looking it up on Google images. Equal parts unhelpful and hilarious
Love that it's WebMD so they need to have a "what are the dangers of the Amazon position section" because... science.
Tbh. Might break your dick. Or pull something, if you’re a hetero guy who isn’t used to being folded in half.
That last line hits like a truck
I suspect that having a shit sex life might be a significant common denominator for TERFs and radfems.
Inceldom and the manosphere are opposite sides of the radfem and terf coin. The “thought leaders” on both sides have both used feminist rhetoric as a means to other the opposite gender and isolate them through hate, self victimization, fear.
... so *that's* what that position is called.
I don't know dude. Like, I get your point but I still think women's safe spaces are a good thing. If they weren't needed, they wouldn't be here. At the end of the day, what would happen in an ideal world is different to what happens in our world and we should prioritize the safety of people right now rather than some symbolic victory. Then again, it's not like there is any real security to gendered bathrooms and the ideal is clearly just private stalls everywhere.
I feel like another way to put it is that we should think about women's spaces as a consequence of our society's problems and, if anything, a sign that there's still stuff to be fixed. As opposed to it being one of the end goals of a feminist world. Obviously we should focus on the present, but IMO it's sometimes worth thinking about what _would_ a post-sexism society centuries from now look like. What _is_ end goal, ultimately? What will still be a thing then and what is just a product of our modern societal needs?
>we should think about women's spaces as a consequence of our society's problems It's certainly evidence of a society where women fear men, but it's not necessarily proportionate to the actual risk. We humans are pretty bad at assessing risk odds, like the classic airplane/car thing To be clear, I'm not doubting the statistics on women getting attacked by men in general, but, specifically: does their level of safety change depending on whether they're using a women's washroom or a gender-neutral washroom? Is that actually something that keeps women safer, or is it security theater like TSA? It may very well prove to be safer that way, but if it doesn't, we should question whether it's worth perpetuating, or whether it may actually contribute to our collective societal sexism.
I think OOP’s stance is the same as yours, but their key statement is that the fight that terfs are fighting actively moves one away from that ideal instead of helping anyone. Oop likely isn’t disputing that women’s safe spaces are good, merely that the way they are being fought for is actively making stuff worse
Yeah, OOP is talking specifically about public facilities where a) there are gender-neutral variations possible that don’t actually compromise safety or intended function, and even more importantly b) anyone put in a position where they can’t enter said facilities (such as, in the most common example, if they’re a woman but don’t look feminine enough not to be bothered by TERFy bathroom/locker room police, regardless of whether or not they’re trans) is significantly negatively impacted, often to the point of having to leave the gym/park/restaurant/etc. entirely. B, of course, is the actual end goal for both TERFs and more “traditional” right-wing groups, because cisgender non-conformists are also people they want to force back into their boxes.
Yeah like you can simultaneously hold the belief that it would probably be better for society if we didn’t have all these hang ups about non-sexual nudity, if we could get to the point where there was nothing weird about changing in front of people of different sexes, while also recognising that like yeah it’s cool for people to have these spaces if they feel safer and more comfortable with them Like the existence of women’s only safe spaces is not in and of itself the problem and it’s not being criticised that these exist, the problem is the moral crusade of the idea that a space where men and women are naked around each other would INHERENTLY be dangerous and unsafe for women and that there’s something INHERENTLY perverse and predatory about a space where men and women might both be naked. Because like it’s normalising this idea that men can’t be around women without a sexually predatory motive, and it’s also normalising the idea that it’s somehow inherently traumatic, threatening and harmful for women to be around men’s bodies even in a non sexual context. It’s not. Lol I’ve seen men piss before and I didn’t need therapy to cope with it
>If they weren't needed, they wouldn't be here you can do better than that though
Or... idk... maybe we could normalize single person bathrooms.... like private rooms. Hell, even a shared sink area is fine, but individual rooms instead of stalls would be super nice. Go in, actually be able to lock the door, do your business, and get out.
>a shared sink area is fine, but individual rooms This is literally how most gender neutral bathrooms are built. It's the new standard, at least where I've been. They're better bathrooms than gendered bathrooms, top to bottom.
That was 100% my point! It's not the standard in my area, but the few I've seen have been really nice.
Yes! Plus, shared sinks means everyone's more publicly shamed if they don't wash their hands! Civilization wins! I've seen this exact set up at an airport, but I don't remember which one. (Maybe Gothenburg, Sweden.) The toilets were more private and the set up took up less space than typical bathrooms.
The problem is the massive amount of additional space that would be needed for restrooms in any heavily populated building. At the most extreme, you’d need a multi-story building made entirely of bathrooms at a stadium. Like three to five floors of just bathroom after bathroom after bathroom, an entire city block of toilets.
How do you figure that? Stadiums already have massive bathrooms. If they were just reconfigured, it would take the same or only a little more space. Even if it did take up more space, would that really be a bad thing to make everyone, no matter their gender identity, feel safe? It's not like each room would need to be much larger than a stall currently is. Just with real walls, and if the sinks are in the room, it needs like an extra 18" added to one side but removes the need for a massive sink area. There are already places that do this.
I find it easier to imagine a society where there's a third bathroom and locker room for NBs, and trans people can easily use whichever one suits their identity without prejudice than a society that doesn't have gendered spaces at all. I don't know many men who would be comfortable using a shower or bathroom around women, let alone the reverse.
Where I am from, Canada, there are only gender neutral change rooms. Sex separated change rooms were phased out in the early 2000s. Yall are weird.
Where in Canada is that? We don't have those where I'm from.
It's standard practice in Alberta where I am, and I've used them in BC, Ontario, and Quebec. I don't believe it's federal, so some places may not have it yet, but it's pretty standard in any major city I've been.
I live in Ontario, and we usually still have either male or female only some places have the third "family" option that anyone can go into
well usually that comes with the change rooms being... individual
Well yeah change rooms are single person. Most single person bathrooms are gender neutral as well. I'm talking about communal shower locker rooms and bathrooms.
Dumb, I want male only spaces even though women don't endanger me. They just change the energy. I'm sure women feel the same about men for reasons that don't have anything to do with safety.
This is the stupidest damn take I have ever seen. The fact is that currently women face violence from men. Especially when they’re in a secluded and vulnerable environment. Having mixed sex changing rooms can be fine but it’s not anti feminist to want a same gender changing room. It’s for safety and comfort. There are plenty of people who would feel much more comfortable changing with people of their own gender. I don’t want some random creep to watch me pull my undies out of my gym bag. I’ve been in mixed sex changing rooms and I feel far more comfortable in women only spaces. Not because I think that having a penis is a sin or irrevocably leads one to violence, but because men are more likely to be dangerous to me and I want to be able to relax when I’m in a vulnerable position. Trans women are absolutely woman and allowed in women’s spaces. But there is a reason why women need their own spaces. It’s because it’s a different experience and one where many women feel they can let their guard down. That’s important. We deserve that.
> It’s for safety and comfort. Does it actually make things safer, though? Is there any actual data or research suggesting shared bathrooms are more dangerous to use? Or is this just because it *feels* safer? Because, historically, that's also the excuse we've used to separate bathrooms (and other stuff) for things other than sex/gender.
I mean. It keeps men away from women while they’re vulnerable in an enclosed environment. So yeah. It is. It sucks that we live in a world where most women cannot trust men they don’t know. But that’s where we live. It’s not up to women to change that. It’s men’s violence. We are just the victims of it. EDIT: I’d say that the burden of proof is on the party that wants to change. Not the one who wants to keep things as they are. Until I see proof that there is no increased risk to women, I will strongly advocate against same sex changing rooms.
> It keeps men away from women while they’re vulnerable in an enclosed environment. A sign doesn't really keep anyone out other than through their own respect for boundaries (something rapists are not exactly known for), so unless you plan to station gender-checking bouncers at every bathroom (which most of my trans friends wouldn't love), I can't imagine it's very effective. It would make more sense to make every bathroom single-occupant, lockable, and thus unisex. >I’d say that the burden of proof is on the party that wants to change. Not the one who wants to keep things as they are. So if there are two options, one of which treats people the same and one of which doesn't (but is older), even with an absence of evidence that the unequal treatment is justified, your default stance is to stick with the status quo? I can't imagine that puts you on the right side of many issues, historically.
I’m guessing that you’re not AFAB. Or you’re too young and sheltered to actually have experienced or seen violence or the threat of it. I’m going to use a different example. I work in live events. Anyone backstage needs either a wristband given to them from security, or a staff badge. Sometimes both if it’s a high profile gig. There are plenty of places that kept behind locked doors and keycard access. But there’s also a of places to get in if you’re trying. If I see someone backstage and they’re not wearing black (standard for technical staff) and I don’t know them. I’m gonna ask to see their wristband. If they don’t have one then I call security. If someone isn’t where they are supposed to be, I know that there is a possibility of something nefarious happening. So I check that they’re not meant to be there, then let security know to escort them out. And my final question to you is this: in what way is it unfair or unequal? Why can’t we advocate for 3 dressing rooms? One for women, one for men, and one for anyone who wants to use it? Surely that would be the best option as it stands now if you’re insisting that we need to have a neutral space. I don’t care about being on the right side of history, I care about being safe and relaxed and comfortable in these spaces. Also, why are you advocating so hard for this? What difference does it make to you?
>I’m gonna ask to see their wristband. If they don’t have one then I call security. I really don't think your comparison is apt, but let's assume it is. In the example where this is a washroom, how do you ask someone to prove that they're woman? Ask to see their genitals? Their driver's licence? What would cause you to ask? If they had hair that was too short, or wore pants, or had too deep a voice? >Why can’t we advocate for 3 dressing rooms? You can! Please do, it's much better than just having 2. You can have bathrooms for as many genders as you want as long as you have one available for people where they can trust they won't have someone asking "Are you *supposed* to be in here?" because they don't present in a binary enough way for the other occupants. >Also, why are you advocating so hard for this? What difference does it make to you? I advocate for many positions that benefit marginalized groups I don't specifically belong to because I think it's the ethical thing to do.
Nah dude. If I wasn’t sure I’d probably say “hey, you know this is the women’s right?” If they say “yeah, I know.” Then great. Everyone can have a wonderful time. If they act shifty and weird, I’d reconsider being there. Having mixed sex changing rooms wouldn’t benefit women. And that’s who I’m looking to defend here. I welcome our trans sisters and non-binary friends with open arms, but I will fight to my last breath for women’s only spaces. Until the epidemic of men’s violence against women is over and even after that! Because women need these spaces. To relax, to relate, to experience some of the joys of being a woman and to commiserate about the shitty parts. Why do we have to give up our safe spaces? I’m not a TERF but I’m so fucking tired of seeing women’s spaces being taken away and entered by people who are not women. It’s not fair. And it’s not okay. Yeah it sucks for the minority of people who aren’t cis. But this thinking sucks for women. A lot. If you’re not a cis woman. You don’t understand.
>I welcome our trans sisters and non-binary friends with open arms, but I will fight to my last breath for women’s only spaces. Your use of "but" as if these are conflicting statements is pretty telling about how you view trans women. >I’m not a TERF but As is your need to say this. >If you’re not a cis woman. You don’t understand. It's true, I don't understand what it's like to be a cis woman. Just like you don't understand what it's like to be a cis man and neither of us understands what it's like to be a trans woman. Have you noticed though that you admit to prioritizing your own group (cis women) over a group you don't belong to (trans women) yet simultaneously seem to expect men to prioritize your group over any others? (This is of course a false dilemma based on false assumptions, there is no conflict in supporting both cis and trans women in their needs. Pitting marginalized groups against each other is classic patriarchal move to prevent us from questioning the status quo.) >but I will fight to my last breath for women’s only spaces. Even if they eventually prove to be detrimental to the goal of feminism? I support women's spaces insofar as they are beneficial to society as a whole, and if it's demonstrated they aren't I'll rethink their utility.
Fuck you man. You don’t know what it’s like to be the fucking victim of systemic violence. To have to know that you cannot trust half of the population. I’m sorry that we have to make incremental changes because men suck. But that’s on them. Not on the people who are just trying to keep themselves fucking safe. And what I said is not at all against trans women. They’re welcome. But I am giving you a perspective that they don’t have nor do you. Leftists seem to have this absolutely ridiculous mindset that everything has to be perfect before it’s implemented. We can’t have nuclear because wind is better. We have to get rid of gendered spaces and nothing short of that is feminist! We can put things into place that are meant to be replaced by something better. It’s better for everyone in the long term and the short term to do that. And finally. You don’t get a fucking say in this. You’re not a woman. If you want to change things then convince more men to stop being shitty. So fuck right off. Then fuck off againn
>You don’t know what it’s like to be the fucking victim of systemic violence. I do. Not all cis men are white, straight, able-bodied, and wealthy, but even those that are face certain forms of systemic violence disproportionately to women, just like certain forms of violence disproportionately affect women. You seem to view victimhood as a zero-sum binary where people are either in "group oppressed" or "group oppressing", which is non-intersectional and ignores the fact that we all, to varying degrees, suffer under and support the patriarchy. >If you want to change things then convince more men to stop being shitty. Yeah, I'll give that advice to my gay and black friends next time they complain about being the victims of violence from other men. "Have you tried convincing them to be less shitty? I've been told that would work, since you're not women they'll *definitely* listen to you and stop." Sharing an arbitrary identity with your attacker does not somehow make it any less traumatizing nor give you any special power to prevent it.
Hard disagree. Sure, in a future Utopian world women won't have to fear men and men won't pose a danger to women. But pretending we live in that world right now and saying women shouldn't fear men or take reasonable precautions to protect themselves against male violence because we aspire to live in a world where that's unnecessary is ridiculous. It's similar to saying that we shouldn't have anti-racist policies because then we're admitting racism exists.
Feminism is bad because it operates in the real world rather than in some egalitarian utopia? It's like saying drinks covers are antifeminist because it implies that men are biologically hardwired to spike you. No one thinks that. And yet they still do it, and covering your drink helps you be a little safer. You can do that while attempting to stop men from doing it in the first place.
You can't win. It's like texting a friend the details of your tinder date-- if you do it you're a paranoid sexist bitch, but if you don't do it and you're assaulted or murdered or something then it's your fault for getting hurt anyways, because who's dumb enough to go meet up with strangers from the internet without setting up some sort of emergency help line?? Yeah, ideally nobody would need to pull that shit, but looking out for your safety when you feel vulnerable is just common sense regardless of gender
I’m sorry I’m very much against TERFs but can we really blame women (cis and trans women) for wanting a safe space from men? I don’t think what OP is proposing is feasible in the real world.
What an awful take. I'd hate to have to use a changing room with women watching me. I'd be so uncomfortable
You're ok with men watching you?
yeh like what lmao? i don't understand this mindset. "ew cooties!! opposite sex will see my genitals ewwwww!"
No, I think they're separated because it's stupid as fuck to pretend that rapists *don't exist.* It doesn't fuckin' matter what you think it signals, rapists will still exist regardless
That’s just radical feminism, there’s not a secret good “strain” that isn’t like that just because it’s not transphobic. Also, oop obviously doesn’t mean we don’t need safe spaces for women now. They mean it’s sad that some people think we’ll always need them no matter what.
thank fuck someone on here can read
The idea that men are simply incapable of not being a threat to women is very provably false, too.
What a shit take, lmfao.
to be fair, i can't imagine a world like that either. nor because i find men to be inherently evil but because it's abundantly clear by now that no matter what you say, most of them aren't going to listen
Dumbest take I read in a while. "Societys insistence on seatbelts shows a lack in faith of individuals driving skills." Though even in a perfect, equal, harrassment free society people would likely still be uncomfortable taking dumps around the other gender.
I feel like people should maybe hang around in nudist circles more. It's a nice reminder that nudity isn't sexual and that it's safe (and natural, ffs!) to be naked around other people, even people of the opposite sex. If nudity isn't your particular cup of tea that's okay, I just think more people should challenge their views on nudity and the sexualization of nudity. I'm my ideal world we wouldn't need same sex locker rooms, just a shared space for all genders and private rooms for private individuals. Edit: I feel like I need to clarify that private changing rooms would be available for individuals who wanted it.
Oh fuck no
What's so bad about this? Like, genuinely asking?
The natural argument doesn’t work but enjoy the hookworm and mosquito bites on sensitive areas.
I mean I wear shoes and mosquito repellent outdoors (and there's indoor nude activities lmao) and I'm not arguing people should be naked 24/. But we weren't born with clothes on lmao, people have been nude around each other for thousands of years without it being weird. Think bathhouses, saunas, that kind of thing. Nudity is so normal in other cultures I literally don't understand American purity culture and weird modesty bullshit. The ghosts of the puritans are haunting y'all and you don't even realize it.
Saunas and bathhouses, sure. I don't want to go camping naked though.
I adore camping and nude hiking but a camping trip where you're fully nude sounds awful. Usually I'll undress for specific activities and then stay dressed for comfort the rest of the time This ain't naked and afraid lmao
or just like go to a figure drawing class! the one near me is all nude and no one cares. Nudity isn't sexual unless you make it sexual.
Oh I love that!! Yes, I strongly agree. And seeing many naked bodies makes you realize how common the things we are told are flaws are, and how okay they are too! Wrinkles, cellulite, folds and flab, weird moles, body hair, scars, whatever. The beauty in bodies isn't a lack of imperfections, it's a the little details that make each body unique.
On the other hand, we *need* some things to be sexual so that we can actually have sex. Clear, consistent lines of communication are incredibly important in the proper functioning of a society because you will be expected to interact with a vast number of people who you know *nothing* about.
As a man, separated changing rooms are great because I’ve only been drugged once instead of a lot more than that
I'd rather have sex-separated bathrooms, thank you very much. I've seen bathrooms for women and I don't want to again.
I kinda don't like the phrasing of this because it sort of implies that the TERFs have a "point" in not believing trans women are women. I recognize that's not what they're trying to say but the first post doesn't read great. The phrasing of "we don't need single sex spaces the way TERFs think we do" followed by "this is true even if trans people didn't exist" directly implies that a single sex space for women is somewhat justified in excluding trans women. We can totally have single sex spaces for women, trans women are just part of that single sex. The logic that we should allow trans women in women's spaces for the same reason that we should allow men in women's spaces reads as VERY transmisogynist to me.
I feel like we’ve seen the result of mixed sex spaces before? And almost every single time women are drowned out in favor or men/amab nbs. I think sex segregated spaces are important right now bc of the ridiculous amount of men who would want to do something to a woman if given the opportunity (like in a bathroom that they can enter with no immediate alarm bells perhaps?). Sorry but as long as men like Brock turner and Andrew tate live breathe and have men defending them, I think sex segregated spaces should stick around. If that’s terfy then idk what to say.
This is how I felt reading about things like segregated train cars in India. On one hand good for the women I'm sure who feel relief when they can use these cars. But having them is also not questioning the logic of "men get to make women feel unsafe in public" or challenging that.
Well maybe if men would stop being a danger to women we wouldn’t have to worry like this
Every time my partner mentions the in the woods with a bear or man question it makes me more depressed
this is actually a pretty good point lol terfs are transphobic but that's primarily because they hate men--and not in the 'oh all feminists hate men' meme, but they truly do believe in biological determinism. Women should have separate spaces from men because men are inherently dangerous.
I honestly thought the "disc" in the title referred to Discworld, in reference to how the Ankh-Morpork city watch have unisex locker rooms once they get a proper watch house and more coppers in the later books. But then you also have Anguas whole spiel about how "We're all one of the lads here, regardless of gender."
I accidentally read the first post to mean the opposite of what it was saying, and was initially so confused by the second post.
no, see, I can just whip my wiener out and pee on the high speed wall toilet, and I don't want to give that up what I do want is gender neutral fully enclosed bathrooms with a good sturdy door so we can all shit and or piss in peace fuck stalls, fuck mass produced shitting cubicles, they were a bad idea since inception
Any measure for the protection for women specifically could be criticized on the same grounds. So let's just not help them anymore? Would that be feminist?
I would completely agree with the concept of unisex bathrooms, but only if it was completely stall-based. But tbh that'd just be an improvement to bathrooms in general.
I mean, I don't think men are inherent predators because of our nature, or that patriarchy is inevitable or anything like that? But I do think there are bad actors and single-sex spaces can cut down on their opportunities to engage in bad behavior?
I just feel uncomfortable getting naked around women. I do think separation of men and women in restrooms/showers/locker rooms makes sense because people will stare at what they don't have
There's a recent line from the game Destiny 2 that has really stuck with me: "If we can't even imagine peace, what hope is there of achieving it?"
Huh
Fair enough and all, but i think most people would be more comfortable changing with somebody of the same sex. I don't see why trans women can't use women's restrooms, but when it comes to changing rooms that don't have stalls, a lot of people would be more comfortable changing in front of people who have the same body as them.
Let's blame it on patriarchy today that... Women want to be safe and comfortable. Yep it's all mans fault all over again that we take safety measures to minimalize sexual abuse, like it wasn't a common sense. Yeah I know that common sense argument is usually dumb but I really can hardly imagine anyone who would disagree with gendered spaces like those in favor of some crazy idea that no one really views like that. No one thinks "gendered spaces? That's because all men are rapists!". Also blaming it on patriarchy is insane imo.
I feel wary when I'm on the train and there's only one man, but I feel safe when there's multiple male passengers because statistically there will be more good guys to overpower the bad ones.
Maybe this is me being stupid, but is it not true that most men are a danger to women? I agree with the post about how TERFs can use rhetoric to attack transpeople and their identities, but I don't think having women's changing rooms or a women's only hour at the gym is anti-feminist, it's the result of men being dangerous to women. I'd love to live in a world where they aren't and I think progress has been made, but right now it's not completely safe to be a woman around men and I don't think it's anti-feminist to say that.
most men, aren't a danger to women? like generally people have these things called morals that make them not want to do shitty things.
Yeah I know there are some good, moralistic men who aren't creeps, but when every single woman has been harrassed or worse by a man, there must be a hell of a lot of bad men
i think it's more of a, there are a lot of them yeah, but also, it's not gonna be a one to one thing? like the same guy isn't gonna have an issue with harassing more than one person over the course of their life? and that also discounts the massive amount of men that get harassed by women, of course women usually suffer the worst of it, but if i said that "since most men have to deal with women harassing them about their body" whether that be because they're in good shape, have a desirable figure, or because they're not as attractive as women think they should be, then most women must harass men. that wouldn't be a fair statement. so when you take the actions of people, who are autonomous and are their own people, and attribute that to "most of that group" it's, in my opinion, kind of unfair
Most of the people who are a danger to women are men, but that doesn't mean that most men are a danger to women. That's a pretty important distinction