Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:14:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:08:04 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
>>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>>During the ERA debate, Phyllis Schlafly argued that the consequences  of
>>a gender-neutral society included the potential for unisex bathrooms.
>>The public went mad.  They clearly did not favor such a thing.  Why n ot?
>
> What is a "gender-neutral" society? Just wondering.
>
> I thought that it was fairly obvious why "the public" does not want
> unisex bathrooms. It has to do with privacy, and with human sexuality.
> Is there some kryptoreason that you are hinting at? What is it?
> Is it something in the bible?
The point is, should we segregate bathrooms just because "the public"
wants it?  If so, then shouldn't we outlaw homosexuality if "the
public" wants it?

>>Don't most people share their bathrooms in their homes with mothers
>>and fathers, sisters and brothers, friends?  Might it not be assumed  that
>>this fear of sharing restrooms with people of the opposite sex has mu ch
>>to do with the (possibly unfounded) fear that such might lead to phys ical
>>consequences (rape, for example.)
>
> Yes, I think it does have something to do with that.
"I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom"
                         -Digital Underground

>>Bathrooms (at least women's bathrooms)
>>have doors, you know.  There is no need for the users of a public res troom
>>to have any unpleasant interactions with one another, or any interact ion
>>at all.  Precisely what is the rationale behind gender-segregated
>>restrooms?  How is such a rationale constitutionally sound?
>Hold on a second.
>Don't we all know why public restrooms are segregated by sex? Why is
>Missy playing coy with us?
No, we don't all know.  We think it has to do with public morals, the
same reason why homosexuality is illegal.  What do you think?

> People feel uncomfortable being in a public bathroom with members of
> the opposite sex. They don't feel uncomfortable because they think
> members of the opposite sex are wicked, or disgusting (probably quite
> the opposite). They feel uncomfortable because of the way we associate
> our nether regions with sexuality. People feel more comfortable when
> restrooms are segregated by sex.
People feel more comfortable when they don't have to share a bathroom
with a homosexual, too.

>Now, what is the constitutional issue that Missy thinks is raised
>by segregating bathrooms by sex? Equal protection? Who is being
>denied equal protection? Are men's rooms really worse than women's
>rooms? If so, couldn't that be changed without integration? Is there
>some bizarre analog of the "badge of slavery" argument, to the effect
>that by forcing women to urinate separately we perpetuate the
>tradition of oppression of women in America? Or what?
What is the "badge of slavery" argument?  Do you mean to say that by
segregating schools by race, we perpetuate the tradition of slavery???
Assuming the schools are equal, this makes no sense!

>>Many laws are based on what you are calling bigotry.  Others call it
>>publicly shared moral and cultural values.
>
> Now THIS I find distressing.
>
>Missy thinks that what I am calling "bigotry," others call "publicly
>shared moral and cultural values." Well, maybe they do, at that.
>I suppose in Selma, they used to call racism a shared moral value. It' s
>quite possible that at the turn of the century, the idea of women
>voting was said to violate "publicly shared values." Maybe some women
>would have agreed.
But the people in Selma probably didn't think of it as racism.

> But calling those feelings "publicly shared values" didn't change the
> fact that they were bigotry in fact. When you claim that others are
> inferior, or immoral, or base, and you can provide no other reason than
> your faith, that is bigotry. And you have a right to it. But when you
> try to enshrine it in law, you run afoul of the 14th amendment.
Define bigotry, Jamie.

>Jamie
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU