Talk:Sex segregation

message: The article seems to lead toward the idea that sex segregation is morally wrong. Any value judgments or leading statements are not fit for an encyclopedia. On top of that, this would be expressing an insignificantly minor viewpoint. Although, I don't think the concept should be so far removed that sex segregation seems 'morally correct' or 'the way things are naturally'. 
To feature sexual discrimination with several paragraphs on this page also adds unnecessary weight to a link between the two concepts. I'd suggest finding a way to tone that down a bit; I'd also note that a continued link between religion and nursing in England has little to do with segregation.
Let's keep focused on the topic; this page really needs a cleanup. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. As the section discussing the San people notes, some sex segregation occurs even in egalitarian societies apparently without causing harm. Sex segregation present with inequality is considered harm as the references indicate, independent of its moral status or being a minority view. Civil liberties and individual liberties are important. It appears to be the case that sex segregation that causes or is linked to harm is sexual discrimination, but I agree with you regarding sexual discrimination per se and have opted for one experts approach. It seems that there is no religion on Earth that does not endorse and encourage sex segregation. Do you know of any that endorse and encourage sex integration? As I recall there were never any male nuns, although I have heard that originally cloistered populations were collectively referred to as convents even when all male. Is this what you are referring to and have you any references to suggest? Except for the change regarding sexual discrimination, I disagree regarding further cleanup. But, comments and criticism are always welcome. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I don't disagree that religion promotes sexual segregation and discrimination. I was simply stating that nursing having a religious background has little to do with the article, and I felt it assumed that religion is innately harmful or some-such (I do not disagree with this view either).--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Discrimination and Sex Segregation as a Negative Concept 

message: This article is so narrow and focused on religion that it is basically useless. Why shouldn't that information just be moved to the pages for those religions, or the general pages on sex and gender? I've added one sentence on occupational segregation, which is surely a major part of sex segregation, with a link - and faced hassle and reverts over it. What is the agenda here? Yyyikes 19:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some material which I believe has increased the subject coverage closer to a worldwide view so I am going to remove the tag. Please feel free to comment, criticize, or retag, if needed. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could mesh the 'religion and sex segregation' area into one or two paragraphs. We don't actually need to explain what an atheist is in this article, and we don't need to separate each religion into its own section. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment. Please put four ~ after your entries. I added the others including atheism to the section under religion to give a greater world-wide view. The direction to the main article on atheism is for defining it. I've been searching the scholarly literature for articles on atheism and sex segregation and found very little research, but many negative comments not necessarily about both at the same time. As you probably noticed the section on Buddhism just below strongly suggests that practicing Buddhists also practice sex segregation, but does not confirm that non-theistic Buddhists necessarily endorse sex segregation. I believe the real question here is whether any religion on Earth endorses sex integration; hence, the need for separate sections on each religion. Before I added this and other sections, the article contained only Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Sex integration' is a change in policy due to a viewpoint on sex segregation. If that is your definition, then many religious groups have changed recently to further incorporate the female gender. Some Mormon groups, for example, have started letting women get involved in their preaching work. Catholics and other Christian denominations have been allowing women to become religious leaders for some time now. Anyway, I do believe all this should be merged into one 'in religion' section. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General structure 

message: Until someone actually brings up an NPOV issue, I'm going to remove the tags. If you want to split out the section, that's fine, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Melchoir 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, but technically he stopped short. Melchoir 09:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please type four ~ after your contributions. As the Qu'ran apparently contains nothing endorsing sex segregation or its common association with discrimination, repression, and civil rights violations against women and men, the actual origins of such behavior probably lie with some other cause. As the additional sections about other religions demonstrate the problem is apparently world-wide. Yet, as the San people have apparently demonstrated some sex segregation and egalitarianism may be our common heritage after millions of years of development. So what has occurred in the last several thousand years or less to produce inequality and its associated harm? Comments welcome, especially with associated scholary references. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tags

message: It appears that the section header only applied to one sentence.  I've moved the remaining text out of the section (unless someone can explain that Josei Senyo Sharyo is derived from Judaism). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism section 

message: This is the material related to gender apartheid that was in the article Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. Editors are encouraged to merge this information into the Sex segregation article:
Saudi Arabia's practices with respect to women have been referred to as "gender apartheid". Handrahan, L.M. Gender Apartheid and Cultural Absolution: Saudi Arabia and the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Internet, Human Rights Tribune, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2001. According to Rita Henley Jensen" while Saudi Arabian women "have the right to own property, transact business, go to school and be supported by their husbands, while maintaining their separate bank accounts", "Women on Saudi soil must have a husband or male relative as an escort. We are not allowed to drive. When sight-seeing we must wear a full-length black gown known as an abaya. During Saudi Arabia's first elections, held the week before my arrival, women were not permitted to vote or run for office." She states that hotels have no female employees, and that segregated eating areas in hotels and beaches for women have poorer facilities. She also criticizes Saudi law for setting female inheritance at half of what men inherit (see Female inheritance in Islam).Jensen, Rita Henley.  Taking the Gender Apartheid Tour in Saudi Arabia, Women's eNews, 03/07/2005.
Andrea Dworkin refers to these practices simply as "apartheid":
Seductive mirages of progress notwithstanding, nowhere in the world is apartheid practiced with more cruelty and finality than in Saudi Arabia. Of course, it is women who are locked in and kept out, exiled to invisibility and abject powerlessness within their own country. It is women who are degraded systematically from birth to early death, utterly and totally and without exception deprived of freedom. It is women who are sold into marriage or concubinage, often before puberty; killed if their hymens are not intact on the wedding night; kept confined, ignorant, pregnant, poor, without choice or recourse. It is women who are raped and beaten with full sanction of the law. It is women who cannot own property or work for a living or determine in any way the circumstances of their own lives. It is women who are subject to a despotism that knows no restraint. Women locked out and locked in.Dworkin, Andrea. A Feminist Looks at Saudi Arabia, 1978. In "Letters from a War Zone: Writings 1976-1989", Lawrence Hill Books, Reprint edition (May 28, 1993). 
Colbert I. King quotes an American official who accuses Western companies of complicity in Saudi Arabia's sexual apartheid:
One of the (still) untold stories, however, is the cooperation of U.S. and other Western companies in enforcing sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia. McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other U.S. firms, for instance, maintain strictly segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The men's sections are typically lavish, comfortable and up to Western standards, whereas the women's or families' sections are often run-down, neglected and, in the case of Starbucks, have no seats. Worse, these firms will bar entrance to Western women who show up without their husbands. My wife and other [U.S. government affiliated] women were regularly forbidden entrance to the local McDonald's unless there was a man with them."
King, Colbert I. Saudi Arabia's Apartheid, The Washington Post,  December 22, 2001. 
Azar Majedi, of the Centre for Women and Socialism, attributes sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia to political Islam:
Women are the first victims of political Islam and Islamic terrorist gangs. Sexual apartheid, stoning, compulsory Islamic veil and covering and stripping women of all rights are the fruits of this reactionary and fascistic movement.Majedi, Azar. Sexual Apartheid is a Product of Political Islam, Medusa - the Journal of the Centre for Women and Socialism.
According to The Guardian, "[i]n the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, sexual apartheid rules", and this sexual apartheid is enforced by mutawa, religious police, though not as strongly in some areas:
The kingdom's sexual apartheid is enforced, in a crude fashion, by the religious police, the mutawa. Thuggish, bigoted and with little real training in Islamic law, they are much feared in some areas but also increasingly ridiculed. In Jeddah - a more laid-back city than Riyadh - they are rarely seen nowadays.Whitaker, Brian. Veil power, "Special Report: Saudi Arabia", The Guardian, February 21, 2006.
Tiamat 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some of this material may be useful

message: You might want to be a little more specific by mentioning that in many Western countries, e.g., the US and Germany (where I've lived), that it is organized sports that are almost always gender segregated. As a cultural matter, it is very common for unorganized sports (such as volleyball, softball, and tennis) to be gender mixed, even among adults. Bostoner (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports 

message: Sex segregation was very common throughout Western history, and this article only mentions contemporary social facts such as sports and nursing, and so it has a taste of modernism. There should be a more balanced historical approach, notably on the primitive origins of sex segregation. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre 1950s

message: There is no rule that states men must sit at front and women at back. Most city buses are like this. However, intercity buses generally not like this during school/work hours. (e.g. buses before 7:30am have the men at front and the women at back but after 7:30am until some time at night women are at front and men at back.) 192.118.11.112 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli buses 

message: I've trimmed outside of a private home. Within these facilities, there may be individual facilities provided, as in the case of toilets. from the lead-in, because it just didn't make sense as it stood. Prisons, changing rooms, and so on, aren't found in private homes, after all. I just couldn't see what the second sentence was intended to convey - could someone who does understand what it meant please supply a clearer version, if they think it's needed, please? Kay Dekker (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material cut for clarity. 

message: While the article probably needs more references to a greater variety of sex segregation world wide, I believe for now that there are sufficient references for the Refimprove tag to be removed. Please feel free to comment or criticize. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving references

message: I have reinserted the quotes regarding religion and sex segregation. Please do not remove them. They are supported by refereed articles and do pertain to understanding the possible origins of the inequality associated with sex segregation. Marshallsumter (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: I believe that different types of clothing also count as sex segration. This goes both ways, with men not really allowed to wear e.g. skirts even in western countries. Maybe it would even be worth it to extend this topic to "segration by appearance": women are supposed to have long hair and men short, makeup is reserved (and often "required") for women, women need to shave their legs while men are "gay" if they do so, etc.
I am not willing to add this to the article by mself since I have no clue about sources that could be used for this claim. However, please see this comment as a contribution, meant as making people thing about this topic and how omnipotent sex segration is. It's not limited to changing rooms, really.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.216.31 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clothing/appearance as sex segration 

message: I propose that the article, Origin of sex segregation, be merged here. It is much too limited to stand alone. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: :In some circumstances, gender segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights
It is doubtful that legitimate, notable critics say this.  I'm writing about the subject of gender segregation in an article I'm working on that concerns the separation of men and women offenders in an alternative sentencing program. The consensus from the participants and the professors teaching the program is that sex segregation is beneficial; the men won't open up about their problems in front of women and the women won't share in front of the men.  This is in the context of a bibliotherapy program, so making the strong claim that helping people deal with their problems is somehow a violation of human rights is beyond absurd. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Hello everyone, 
As part of Rice University's Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities Program, my Poverty, Gender, and Development class annually contributes to Wikipedia articles concerning gender difference and disparities. My partner Achresto (talk) and I have chosen to contribute to and help revamp this article. 
We believe it is in need of more citations and a global perspective, as well as structural reorganization that broadens the page's focus. Looking over the talk page, it seems prior debates focused on whether and when segregation and discrimination are related, how religion (particularly Islam) relates to segregation, and whether the citations given accurately balanced examples of segregation and accounted for its origins. Disagreements seem to have hinged on these smaller examples rather than discussion of the overall plan for the article, and as a result the current article feels disorganized. Our primary goal, then, is a reorganizing. 
We also think a NPOV is lacking or stretched in some statements, for example: "In some circumstances, gender segregation is a controversial policy, with critics contending that in most or all circumstances it is a violation of human rights" (uncited). Further, more careful distinction should be made between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in the existing article, perhaps including a renaming to 'Gender discrimination'. The segregation of sex may impact construction of gender identities. We plan on reorganizing the article by starting off from a broad, theoretical perspective, discussing scholarly definitions and causes of gender segregation, and subsequently addressing different spheres of gender segregation in public and private realms. 
The current article does an adequate job listing some arenas in which gender segregation takes place. We plan to include contemporary examples of areas of gender segregation, specifically where policies are in place to enforce segregation or desegregation, to both facilitate a global perspective and also provide an opportunity for multiple editors to continually update the article, maintaining high-quality work. Lastly, we want to discuss consequences (positive and negative) of gender segregation for all genders as well as critiques of gender segregation. Our proposed outline is thus: 
Sex segregation 
1. Definition
2. Causes and origins
3. Spheres of segregation
3.1 Public
3.2 Private
4. Contemporary examples
4.1 Segregation
4.2 Desegregation
5. Consequences
6. Critiques
7. See also
We would love feedback on the organization proposed, and any content, technical, or miscellaneous feedback is also welcome. Thanks!
NSDhaliwal (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revamp 

message: This article looks great, but some minor revisions can be made. Specifically, it can be further proofread, and the section on “Significance” can be broken down into smaller sections. Going section by section, I have made the following notes:
Lead section:
Specify what kind of separation (physical, social, cultural). It might be useful to establish this early on, even though it is described in the “definitions and causes” section.
Perhaps write “some critics” and “some supporters” to show that all of these opinions cannot be generalized by each group.
Short and concise! Nice!
Definitions and causes:
How does gender apartheid, as applied to the segregation of people by gender, imply sexual discrimination?
Permissive sex segregation:
Include some more links to other articles, such as with Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
Theoretical explanations:
Can you include a link to libertarian political theory?
Libertarianism- really wonderful explanation about how the theory is applicable to sex segregation! Very thorough, great examples
Equal treatment:
“treat likes alike” doesn’t make sense…”treat people alike” instead?
Change “questions when are men and women alike” to “questions when men and women are alike”…add quotes as well! The wording is confusing.
Critical race feminism:
Some minor issues with grammar in this section
Contemporary policy examples:
The wording of the first sentence is awkward, and “different” is used twice.
Safety and privacy:
Excellent section! Examples are wonderful and the plentiful links are very useful.
Religious and cultural ideas:
There are some stray brackets in the first paragraph that need to be removed.
Education and socialization: 
Overall, really great. Perhaps you can include some statistics about different outcomes between coed and single-sex schooling?
Desegregation:
There are some links in red, which need to be removed.
Significance:
“For most children” instead of “in most children.”
Provide some more context for the statistics on women’s job satisfaction.
Some more brackets need to be deleted.
Wonderful work, and I cannot wait to read the article once it has been further fine-tuned and polished.
Heidimkahle (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the thorough review! We plan on implementing all of these technical changes. NSDhaliwal (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article review

message: I agree with Heidi's points that she brought up in her review of her article. Overall, I was very impressed at the scope of the article and variety and range of sources used and topics discussed. My one large worry is that the article is written on a higher than 5th grade level, and while is very well-written, might not be as accessible to some Wikipedia readers. Maybe find ways to simplify the language and concepts used in some areas to ensure that this is not a worry. Here is a list of comments I quickly wrote down as I read through. 
#maybe add a little bit more to the intro for readers who only read that section
#give a more clear example of mandatory sex segregation in employment, maybe specifically say female nurses are used for such and such
#some sentences a bit long for average reader to follow, written well, but also at a slightly higher level, might want to re-word to improve readability for average wiki reader
#within the different feminism viewpoints it would be very interesting if you could name major scholars in each group/major organizations
#perhaps find a way to put subheadings in some of the large sections such as desegregation and significance for more organization
#photos added look great, maybe see if more could be added towards the beginning
As you can see, there aren't too many because I really think you two did an excellent job. I am glad you discussed the ways that sex segregation can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. I also appreciate that you explained that sex and gender segregation are not equivalent, a very important concept. Good luck with continuing to improve the article!
Robinkvest (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice Robin! We will try add more photos throughout the article for balance. Furthermore, one of our concerns was readability, especially in the longer sections, including "Desegregation" and "Significance". Some of the other reviewers also commented that we should add more to our introduction, which we plan on doing; it was originally written before we knew the scope of our entire article. NSDhaliwal (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article review #2

message: I agree with many of the points that have already been brought up. I think this article does a great job at maintaining neutrality, providing a variety of sources, linking the article to other articles, and following Wikipedia's style guidelines. While I did see some grammatical and wording issues, these have already been mentioned in the previous two reviews so I don't think there is a need to discuss them again in the post. My other points of feedback include breaking up the significance section. It is really long and I think  that providing subsections might make it more readable and easily digested by the readers. This could be done by breaking the section up according to the different types of sex segregation that is mentioned in the artcile. I also would expand on the desegregation section. Are there more policies and viewpoints that argue for desegregation. I think that the article could be improved by offering a more in-depth notation of the opposite viewpoint of sex segregation. Additionally the illustrations are kind of small and difficult to read, even when they are zoomed in on. Making them bigger might help. Other than that, I think this article is great and on the right track!  B.chachere (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of Current Article and Revisions

message: Overall I don't think the lead section is doing justice to the thoroughness of the rest of the article. For example: 
I think the original opening sentence:
"Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their biological sex while gender segregation is the separation of people according to social and cultural constructions of what it means to be male vs female [1]."
would be stronger if it read: 
"Sex segregation is the separation of people according to their biological sex. This is distinct from gender segregation, which is the separation of people according to social and cultural constructions of what it means to be male versus female [1]."
I also think you could expand on the ending phrase: "...supporters argue that it is central to certain religious laws and social and cultural histories and traditions [3][4]." Your article cites more facets of this side of the debate - like economic efficiency...
One element that I think is missing is a discussion of the impact this sex segregation has on intersexed and transgender members of the community. There are lots of resources out there, especially considering recent legal battles and sufficient media coverage surrounding issues of public restrooms and trans-people's designation...I think Rice was even considering having gender neutral restrooms...
Other than that I think the other reviewers have already covered it; this article is great! 
Lenasilva (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Review Responses
Hi B.chachere and Lenasilva,
Thanks so much for the helpful comments! I think the general consensus from your input is that the segregation section needs to be divided into subsections and our introduction can be strengthened according to the thoroughness of our entire article. I think doing the conclusion according to how we broke up the contemporary examples would be an excellent way to tie up the article, while expanding upon the significance of desegregation at the very end, and potentially even including more policies for desegregation in the contemporary examples section. B.chachere, when you say offer a more in-depth notation of the opposite viewpoint of sex segregation, do you mean that we should include more of the viewpoint that sex segregation is good vs bad for people or women? Thanks for the tip on the illustrations as well, we will work with the formatting to make sure they are legible to viewers. 
Lenasilva, I agree completely with your point about our opening of the article. I really like the way you re-worded it as well, thanks for the edit! Do you think we should include more in the opening about economic efficiency or less about religious laws/social traditions? 
We also considered including a portion on intersexed and/or transgender members of communities; however, we wondered if the scope would be too broad for the realm of this article. We thought it would be worthwhile to suggest a new article be created on project pages, possibly to be linked off of this article? If you saw a specific part of the article that you thought would be strengthened even by mentioning this specific issue, we would love to hear it. 
Thanks again!
Achresto (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sex segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624214051/http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGACT770232007&lang=e to http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGACT770232007&lang=e
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/bmfsfj/generator/ADS/Tipps-fuer-Betroffene/faqs%2Cdid%3D102812.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.proutglobe.org/2011/05/the-status-of-women-in-world-religions/
*Added  tag to http://www.arches.uga.edu/~haneydaw/twwh/apartheid.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2212/context/ourdailylives
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sex segregation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/bmfsfj/generator/ADS/Tipps-fuer-Betroffene/faqs%2Cdid%3D102812.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20130308IPR06303/html/Poverty-has-a-female-face-economic-crisis-hits-women-hardest
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629102046/http://www.helpafghanwomen.com/Global_Petition_Flyer.pdf to http://www.helpafghanwomen.com/Global_Petition_Flyer.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have made some edits to the lead and the definition to point out that sex saparation might be the more appropriate term, or to at least epxlain the difference. Given that there is a whole separate article on gender apartheid I think we should be careful to not create overlap between the two articles. The way I see it is that sex segregation does not necessarily carry discrimination (it might or it might not), whereas the term "gender apartheid" focuses on the negative consequences for women. Is that also how others see it? Both articles would probably benefit from another review and overhaul. Comments by User:Olliemae? EMsmile (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making it more neutral and differentiate to [[gender apartheid]] 

message: "People of gender" is a ridiculous term - doesn't everyone have a gender? No matter how many genders you believe there are, you can't say that there are people who are without gender. Even if this is occasionally used, it's confusing and meaningless.98.22.175.207 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Hi,
In my personal opinion, I think it would be more correct to name this page as "sex separation" better, rather than "sex segregation". I personally think the term sex segregation seems to have more of a loaded tone to it which leans towards some charged bias in a way, whereas sex separation is a little more neutral.
One thing I would like to mention is if we are comparing two instances of it, I'm sure most people can see a pretty significant difference between sex separated bathrooms (which both men and women continue to do today) vs racially segregated water fountains.
I think there is nuance and to use the term "segregation" would be comparing apples to oranges and saying they are similar situations. Philipbrochard (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Philipbrochard There is no need to use a neutral term. The phenomenon of gender seggregation is as charged as it sounds, or perhaps more. This actually increase sexualization and objectification of the people of other gender. It causes lot of gender based  violence such as rape, violence on women, etc. The children forget to love each other. 2409:40E0:1019:6B00:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to rename page with a more neutral term 

message: As someone being a resident of India and being reared in a "boys only" school, this article really strikes me. Its surprising it doesn't include India. I developed a lot of mental health complications towards the opposite gender, as a result I was made even more seggregated. 
Conventionally, the Indian schools are either "Boys school" or "Girls schools", although with progress of time, more co-educational schools are being established. 
The gender segregation is considered as a part of an important societal lesson that girls and boys must behave differently, play differently, do not have exchange of ideas, and the societal norms being protected. 
Sometimes in a co-educational school, teachers would specify different rows for the boys and girls. Sometimes the students especially in high-schools, colleges, or universities, themselves would seat separately due to a sense of societal awkwardness, or a sense of embarrassment, or a sense of fear or hatred towards the opposite gender, although this pattern is slowly weakening, and is not very prevalent in metro cities. 
I sometimes feel like the either end of the patriarchial system; the celibate priests or religious leaders in the one end, and in the other end the the hooligan, drug addicts, the street people who disturbs or taunts the women; are the products of the same system. Where people of the opposite gender do not interact with each other from an early age, and develops misconception about one another. 
Rape is a different incidence, which is often done by trusted family members, neighbours, or dignified people. As a result, victim shaming is the norm. It is common for a rape victim (esp. woman) to suicide or attempt suicide. This is because Rape in India is primarily defined by immodesty of the victim (legally only a girl or woman) than the consent violation by the perpitrator (legally only a man). There is no recognition of marital rape either.  People usually demand exemplary punishment for the perpitrator, but there is almost no voice for removing the gender stereotype and power dynamics that causes these offenses. Sometimes schools that culturally admits only 1 gender of students, often have the reason that if they allow the opposite gender, they would incest with each other. They sees their students as sexual objects and not as conscientious human being. 
In India, we observe something very opposite of the Westermarck effect (perception of familiar people as siblings than sexual mates), instead of desensitization, we get hyper-sensitized due to prolonged gender segregation of 2 genders from very early childhood in schooling and social ceremonies, when we reach adulthood, we start to perceive the opposite gender hypersexually, often as sexual fantasies or sexual objects rather than of conscientious being. It becomes hard for us to use a gender neutral language, or to analyze a situation without a gender bias. Whenever we meet a new person, we undermine the ideas they have, and we get primarily focused on gender, physical beauty, and associated expectations as per the social stereotype. 
Sometimes these stigmata are even more powerfull when a person have a mental illness or disability. They are most obviously avoided by their colleagues (males with mental abnormalities can be perceived as rapists, and females with mental abnormalities can be perceived as sluts or witches), or may be sexually exploited. 
Therefore my request is to please add a detailed section about gender seggregation in India. 
2409:40E0:1019:6B00:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex seggregation in Indian schools