From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The War Between the Jasons
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:08:04 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

>Gender segregated bathrooms do not occur because of (what you think of as)
>bigotry?  Why not?

Well, I THOUGHT we segregated bathrooms for reasons of privacy, or
modesty, or something like that. I'm not really sure what you're
driving at.
Maybe it's something like this. Homosexuals do not have the same
reason to want bathrooms segregated by sex as heterosexuals do. So,
it is conceivable that homosexuals could claim that segregating
public bathrooms discriminates against them. I must say, I don't
see exactly how the claim would be made out, but I'm happy to
listen to whatever argument you want to give.

>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 not?

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?

>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 much
>to do with the (possibly unfounded) fear that such might lead to physical
>consequences (rape, for example.)

Yes, I think it does have something to do with that.

>Bathrooms (at least women's bathrooms)
>have doors, you know.  There is no need for the users of a public restroom
>to have any unpleasant interactions with one another, or any interaction
>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?

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.

If you don't agree with this, Missy, I wish you would say why YOU
think restrooms are segregated. For my part, I feel a little silly
continuing this discussion, not least because I think equal protection
is very important and shouldn't be trivialized.

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?

>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 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.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU