THW: Encourage the construction of gender-neutral bathrooms

Con's points seem to be as followed: 1) Gender-neutral bathrooms increase the likelihood of privacy violations. 2) Gender-neutral bathrooms are awkward. 3) Gender-neutral bathrooms make children more likely to ask about differences between sexes. 4) People are more likely to have sex in gender-neutral bathrooms than in gendered ones. Perhaps the biggest concern Con brought up is the idea of privacy violations. Of course, these would indeed be serious, but that problem is alleviated by simply making all the cubicles closed off such that there is no gap above or below the door. Bathrooms such as these (both gendered and gender-neutral) already exist, and I think they're a lot more comfortable for everyone, as they make privacy violations less likely from anyone (including members of the same sex, who would be allowed in the same gendered bathroom as oneself) as well as the added benefit of not hearing or smelling someone doing their business as much. These bathrooms would make privacy violations from anyone much less likely, and so they are a necessary change to bathrooms anyway, and once such a change takes place, the argument that suggests gender-neutral bathrooms would lead to increased privacy violations is negated, as it would be extremely difficult to violate someone's privacy in such bathrooms. One should also consider the fact that lesbians and gay men already use the womens' and mens' bathrooms respectively, and that they don't violate the privacy of others (despite the possibility they are sexually attracted to them) anywhere near enough for it to be a commonplace issue, and making bathrooms gender-neutral wouldn't change this. Gender-neutral bathrooms already exist in many places, and there has yet to be any scientific evidence presented that gender-neutral bathrooms increase the rates at which privacy violations and sexual assaults happen. I feel it would help Con's case very strongly if they could provide such a study, but I have been unable to find one and I imagine they will be to. Even if they were able to, for the above reasons (better cubicles making privacy violations nigh on impossible, and the fact privacy violations don't happen often despite the presence of lesbians in womens' bathrooms and gay men in mens' bathrooms) I feel this would be simply down to poorly-designed cubicles. Solve that problem, and you alleviate a problem that would be present with or without gender-neutral bathrooms, but in making the bathrooms gender-neutral, you solve all the problems I discussed in R2. Bathrooms are awkward, for everyone. Con's claim that: "However, in a gender-neutral bathroom, there might be a man who has just finished crapping standing at the sink next to a woman doing her makeup" is interesting, because it implies that a woman who just finished crapping standing at the sink next to another woman doing her makeup would somehow be less awkward, but they've not really argued why this is the case; in my view, that's just as awkward. I feel Con will have to further develop this point in R3 for it to be convincing, but even if they do, I feel that slight awkwardness is a reasonable price to pay for fighting against sexism and transphobia, and to protect children by allowing their parent to be with them, and to save money in the process. I'd also like to point out that having transgender people in either bathroom is awkward for them and awkward for everyone else. It's more awkward for someone who is incorrectly perceived as a woman to be in the mens' bathroom, for instance, than for everyone to be allowed in the same bathroom. I'd maintain that children should ask questions about the differences between sexes, and that it's a necessary and healthy part of growing up. That said, it isn't appropriate for a child to be seeing a stranger's genitals, and for that reason I agree we should try to avoid this. However, separating toilets into well-sealed cubicles (as described in my refutation of the privacy issue) once again solves this; children cannot see into the cubicle, so they cannot see the stranger's genitalia. Single-urinals can also be placed into cubicles, so this would allow AMAB (assigned male at birth) people to urinate while standing without causing a privacy or indecency issue. Trough-urinals are inherently awkward for everyone, especially since it's not unheard of for urine to splash onto others using the urinal. Hence, the former causes no issue, and the latter should be abolished anyway. The idea: "young boys can be known to pull their pants all the way down when using the urinal, and while I don't know from experience, there are probably some young children who may forget to pull their pants up. " is addressed by pointing out that children must be accompanied by a parent or guardian, and that because the bathroom is gender-neutral, they could come into the cubicle with the child in order to ensure that they do pull their pants up. This actually helps to alleviate the problem Con makes, as the alternative would be for the child to enter a bathroom without their parent, forget to pull their pants up, then walk out of the bathroom with them down for members of any sex or gender to see, for a long time. In response to: "This problem escalates further when the bathroom doubles as a changing room" This is not relevant to the motion, as it is only discussing public bathroom (i. e. toilets, not changing room). However, exactly the same arguments can be applied; stick everyone in a separate cubicle and you alleviate the problems. The idea that more people will have sex in gender-neutral bathrooms is also refuted by observing that lesbians and gay men aren't having sex in public toilets anywhere near often enough for it to be an issue, and there's no reason (again, a scientific study from Con could really help their case, here) to think this will change in gender-neutral bathrooms. In any case, if people want to have sex in public, a toilet is probably one of the last places they'd go for on account of the smell and the likelihood of being walked in on. So, to summarise my refutation: 1) Measures can be (and are) enforced to protect individuals from privacy violations, and there's little reason to think gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to an increase in them. 2) The idea that gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to awkwardness has been poorly argued. Even if this were true, such awkwardness is slight, and is a price worth paying for all the benefits I listed in R2. 3) Children should ask about the differences between sexes, but the measures implemented in (1) prevent this from happening in the context of gender-neutral bathrooms. 4) Public sex is unlikely to increase in gender-neutral bathrooms, on account of it already being rare and bathrooms being an unlikely place to choose to do so. All of Con's points are fundamentally just scaremongering and "slippery slope" fallacies. There is little to no evidence that any of it is true. All of the benefits I listed in R2, however (and I would encourage you to read my R2 argument again at this point) are clear; transgender people are more comfortable in gender-neutral bathrooms, as are parents who can better look after their opposite-sex children, and fighting sexism and saving money are pretty nice benefits, too. Also, side note: this debate has never been about making *all* bathrooms gender-neutral (I even specified this in the comments). Most of Con's points, even if you accept them as true, are alleviated by situations where there are gendered bathrooms AND a gender-neutral one. This would be consistent with the motion. I also feel further reading on this issue may be of interest: 1) . http://www.newyorker.com... 2) . https://www.bustle.com...