Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Coed Bath and Shower Rooms

Joel, Jerry and I have been having a long drawn out discussion about sexuality, body parts and bathrooms.  This triggered an interesting question.

If the LGBT community has figured out that anyone should be able to use any bathroom or shower room based on their personal self identification, not on their sexual preference and/or body parts.  The logic being that it really doesn't matter since we all are mature open minded people...  Then should our society just drop this whole silly men's and women's thing?

I remember a while back that Laurie said she would have no problem being naked in a shower room with a Lesbian. (ie woman sexually attracted to other women)  So does that mean that we should be able to go coed and have heterosexual men in that same room? (ie man sexually attracted to women)

Why or why not?  What is your rationale?  How does this apply or not apply to the on going bathroom law debate?

For a visual...  Here is an image of the coed shower scene from Starship Troopers...

A discussion of the scene at Quora
More discussion on Reddit


jerrye92002 said...

The difference is "don't ask, don't tell." A lesbian can use the women's showers and nobody knows and nobody cares, UNLESS and until said lesbian raises suspicions by some behavior or confirms those suspicions by, say, SAYING so. Most suspicions would be dismissed and tolerated, but the knowing would lower the level at which otherwise suspicious behavior would be objectionable.

What surprised me after the lifting of that sensible policy was that there were not more openly declared "male lesbians" in the Armed Services.

John said...

Even with the law on their side... I am assuming they are pretty nervous to come out in that testosterone driven somewhat autonomous organization.

Remember A Few Good Men...

jerrye92002 said...

My point is that men would declare themselves lesbians in order to share showers with those (women) they were sexually attracted to. Don't ask, don't tell separated soldiers by apparent sex, not by orientation. Reversing that policy said that orientation didn't preclude shower-sharing, so, "male lesbians" should bunk with the female lesbians, right? I'm sorry, but it's just silly.

John said...

MP Bathroom Politics

John said...

MP comments

"I've been reflecting on the implications of this in locker/shower rooms rather than simply in restrooms. I just want to throw out some scenarios I've been thinking about to try and help myself unpack the various issues that may or may not be relevant.

Let's say we stick with the idea of single gender locker rooms. Based on some of the comments above, the reason this is preferable is because it will eliminate the risk of a person being leered at by someone who views them in a sexual way.

At its most basic, lets start by considering a locker room with only women (as assigned at birth) within it. Does this get us around the concern as expressed above?

Well, not necessarily. As we know, there is a percentage of the population that is attracted to their own gender. And of course, there is no way of determining whether a person has that status by looking at them. So if I am disrobing or showering in a single gender locker room surrounded by others of my own gender, for all I know, someone among those around me may be "leering" at me.

Of course, as long as they never do anything more than "leer", I will never know. So was I harmed? And how would I even know? I wouldn't. So the fact is, not even a single gender locker room is a guarantee against the possibility of myself or a family member being "leered at" by someone else who is legitimately in that locker room.

Now let's open it out a notch. Still single gender locker room, but expanded to include those who consider themselves to be that gender even if that was not the gender assigned at birth.

As has also been pointed out, in many cases, the others in that locker room may never even know the person is transgender. That depends on many factors. So once again, if you've been in the same locker room with a transgender person, but you never even knew it, then it's hard to imagine what "harm" has been done.

But let's say it's a situation where you DO know the person is transgender. I still propose that there's no inherent harm being done. You have no more idea as to whether that person is attracted to the surrounding people sharing that locker room than you did in the first scenario. Some transgender people are attracted to one gender, some to the other. You can't tell by looking at them any more than you can by looking at a non-transgender person. That's just the way it is.

So I really can't see any validity to claims of harm in any of the scenarios involving same sex locker rooms.

That's where my thoughts stand at this point. Just thought I'd throw it out there." Pat

"That is the most rational discussion of this topic I have heard so far. I personally think has to do with what one knows and what one is forced to see.

Before LGBT folks chose to make their preferences known to the general public and demand that the public accept them as they are, pretty much no one knew if they were showering with a gay man. Therefore unless he was acting inappropriately, no one cared. Now when many of his peers know who turns him on, they may feel more shy in the locker room. (ie kind of like if there was a woman in there)

As for transgenders, if she self identifies as a woman and still has man parts. I am pretty sure most women would be uncomfortable sharing a shower... And Lord knows the girls would be terrified...

Now the women commenting here have likely been sheltered since it seems society often gives them stalls in which to do their business. Whereas often the men are asked to just let it all hang out.

In my latest post I proposed that if this is just a silly Republican topic, then lets get rid of the men's and women's signs. (ie coed like Starship Troopers) I mean many people here seem to be saying that intent and parts don't matter anyway." G2A

jerrye92002 said...

I point out that Starship Troopers is set in the far distant future when, presumably, we will have shaken off the old Victorian mores and sex is just good physical exercise, like situps or pushups. But we aren't there yet, and all this pushing towards it is only putting up the defenses against that utopian (or not, depending on your POV) future.

And I still want to clarify one thing. A "transgender" that is born male and still has "male parts" is not, in my uninformed opinion, a transgender but either a "questioning," or a transvestite, or suffering from "gender dystopia." They belong in the men's locker room, where their presence would be unremarkable unless their inappropriate behavior created problems for the other folks. And if THEY were uncomfortable seeing the same parts that they themselves had, they could avail themselves of the private facilities set aside for such cases.

John said...

Seems logical to me.

John said...

Personally I think it will be in the far far far distant future given how large the pornography business is and how fast it is growing.

It seems men, women, gay and lesbian seem be even more aware of the bodies of others and the pleasure they can bring than at anytime in history. Not so sure they could be platonically showering next to each other... This may be more of an animal lust issue than Victorian mores issue.

jerrye92002 said...

Interesting, now that you mention it. Recall that shortly after that shower scene where we are all equal regardless of equipment, a couple has their sexual frolic interrupted by the CO, all fully aware of the Vive la Difference!

Thousands of years of evolution have wired us to perpetuate the species, and we can exercise our will power and control those urges, but it's silly to think they will cease to exist. And certainly not by legal edict.