To guys, it seems like a great idea. To girls, generally horrifying. Not only because women in general don’t like to be checked out, but because they don’t want to have to look at most men’s bodies.
Why am I bringing this up? I ran across a worldnet article about co-ed showers in Maryland, that are being lobbied to shut down.
The article talks about people with gender identity issues, and sensitivity to that in public shower facilities. This spurred me to think, what basis does any company have to offer sex-discriminatory facilities? In any regard? What is the real reason we have segregated bathrooms and showers?
Gender privacy is related to sexual attraction as far as I can tell. But in a day and age when GBLT preferences are normalized, gender specific bathrooms may be just as sexualized as co-ed ones. You are probably less likely to be “checked out” while in a gender specific bathroom (there are relatively few GBLT people as a percentage of the population), but it could still happen. Plus, transgendered people may be anywhere in between at any given time - how do you decide which bathroom they are permitted to use?
I totally understand why women have places like “Curves” and “For Women Only” gyms. Heterosexual male nature can lead to unappreciated attention. However, by the same token, the very nature of the gym is discriminatory, as a woman may still encounter unappreciated attention from lesbian or bisexual women. Why are they allowed to exist? Why are courts forcing the Boy Scouts to accept girls, but girls are permitted to have all-girl clubs?
The contrarian in me needs to point out the silliness and inconsistency of life. What do you think: should gender specific facilities be done away with or not?
Abattoir wrote:
I’m all in favour of segregated changerooms and showers (toilets can be phased out), but I also see the hypocrisy of allowing girls- or women-only clubs, while complaining vociferously if anyone dares open a boys- or men-only club. Your Boy Scouts remark hit the nail on the head.
Posted on 22-Feb-08 at 11:25 am | Permalink
Spitfire wrote:
The Ally McBeal discussion rises again!
Having spent many years in cadets and fond memories of male and female tent lines, only to find once I was a Civilian Instructor or officer, we had co-ed tent lines (*gasp* shocking after years of segregation). The increase in people having sex multiplied, but that like was because everyone was 18+ and we had access to alcohol.
I just had a similar conversation the other day with my dad. He was discussing a military exercise/trip to Ottawa for his regiment, mentioning that he needs to count the number of females to ensure they have their own hotel room. I kind of laughed, and my dad asked why it was so important (knowing the answer of course). I brought up, “But dad, what if they play for the other team?” (then having to explain the Seinfeld reference). Anyway, it points to what you’re bringing up with hetero/homosexual bathroom facilities (which military doesn’t actually admit exist).
From experience, I was on a business trip for work and travelling with a male colleague. Because it was a budget-constrained program, I was asked if it would be ok if we shared a hotel room, but I told them my boyfriend would likely not be comfortable with that idea. Funny, how they asked me, the woman, but they didn’t ask my male colleague, if it would be ok with him (he had a girlfriend, and agreed that his gf probably wouldn’t like the idea either).
In university residence, we had co-ed bathrooms (shower stalls too) and this posed no problems at all. But we had someone who cleaned it every weekday.
Posted on 22-Feb-08 at 11:27 am | Permalink
CMP wrote:
As if co-ed dorms weren’t bad enough. The “unisex” bathroom on Ally McBeal always bemused me. I don’t even like shared same-sex facilities - I would much rather do my business in private at any time.
Posted on 22-Feb-08 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
James Goneaux wrote:
Maybe we should send Warren Kinsella and his SuperCamera to take some pics to post? Sounds like a really, really terrible abuse of Human Rights…
Seriously, at least the Brits have it honestly. They call such practises “positive discrimination”. In other words, all boy clubs are “negative discrimination”, but one for all girls is because its “positive”. Moving society forward, and all that.
Sorta like what all married men know: “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is ours”…
Posted on 25-Feb-08 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
First, I would like to comment on the article cited in the Opening Post.
This is most outrageous for one reason alone: this should not be an issue of the state.
It is the height of arrogance to have the government coerce people over this matter. I want to be compassionate towards people with “gender identity” issues or whatever but there are limits. I have a hell of a lot more compassion for a person in a wheelchair.
—-
Women are the fairer sex.
I am not too sure I know what that means for everybody but I think it suggests that men can not take women for granted be it in a business, a pleasure or a family setting. All of the examples of inconsistencies that we cite would suggest to me that even the Politically Correct advocates subconsciously accept this.
Posted on 26-Feb-08 at 6:02 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Agreed. Nudity doesn’t seem to be as big of a deal for men as it does for women, which maybe explains why in many gym facilities women are provided individual shower stalls while men still use an open shower.
In most facilities a certain change room etiquette governs behaviour, even for those who get some sexual excitement from such environs. And most likely, such etiquette is reinforced by the sameness of body kinds, that is, the sex features of either all men or all women; everybody has the same equipment. Mix that up and you are necessarily sexualizing the change room to an extent most decent people would not appreciate.
As Bill Clinton once rested his defence upon, sex is a specific act, specific to a man with a woman; blow jobs not included. In the absence of such clear definition, expansive definitions of sex are just slippery slope. It’s a safe bet that co-ed showers are bound to encourage sex, an act unique to relations between men and women.
What about homosexual behaviour in change rooms?
Always a possibility, but might I offer that private facilities, independent of state intervention, will enforce good etiquette, etiquette that satisfies their patrons and keeps them coming back rather than turning them off.
Posted on 26-Feb-08 at 9:23 am | Permalink
martin pearl wrote:
Seems to me the line:
>because they don’t want to have to look at most men’s bodies.
is a rather ugly and sexist statement, no?
Someone please tell me why it’s okay to denigrate men freely. You *really* ought to be ashamed of yourself, such willing self-loathing is repugnant.
Posted on 26-Feb-08 at 10:25 pm | Permalink