Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dadmonson

Public Bathroom Laws and Policies

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I suspect the point is a desire for privacy while exposing themselves and engaging in "unpleasant" bodily functions. I suspect this is particularly more desired by woman than men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poll is interesting thus far. As I stated over there, I think they should do away with stalls and bathrooms should be individual rooms in which any type of human can relive themselves. Just like in homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether or not people want separate men's and women's bathrooms doesn't answer the question: What's the point?
The point of the government having a single unisex pot as opposed to sex-segregated pots would be a recognition of patrons' interests. If there is negligible interest in having segregation in the facilities, then there is no reason to have two rooms and some reason (cost) to not do so. If there is overwhelming interest in segregated toilets, then the government should consider spending a bit of extra money to build two separate facilities. That doesn't mean that the government must have sex-segregated toilets, it simply means that the government must decide one way or the other, and patron interest is one legitimate factor to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. The fact that they are government-owned toilets still presents the essential contradiction, ie, that I would be forced to pay for same-sex only bathrooms even if I disagreed with it (and it would cost me money to boot!)

The solution, of course, is private restrooms, but I still ask: why same-sex only? I recognize that the owner could decide whichever way they wanted, but I still don't see the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The solution, of course, is private restrooms
I would agree except when it is not possible to perform necessary government functions off government property. Obviously the need for a government policy at all should be minimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would agree except when it is not possible to perform necessary government functions off government property. Obviously the need for a government policy at all should be minimal.

I've been thinking about this and it just hit me. Wouldn't a better solution be to provide all three kinds of restrooms? This way people of confused genders (along with people who just want more privacy) could simply use a unisex restroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't a better solution be to provide all three kinds of restrooms?
There are 6 kinds of male toilets: straight male, homosexual male, transsexual male, homosexual & transsexual male, homosexual & straight male, transsexual & straight male, male. Then you can have 6 kinds of female toilets, and add in sex-blendings such as total-unisex; heterosexual unisex; transsexual unisex etc. etc. Usually one doesn't have the real estate necessary to install a couple dozen kinds of potties, so I don't think full recognition of diversity is possible. So the government must decide whose interests to snub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 6 kinds of male toilets: straight male, homosexual male, transsexual male, homosexual & transsexual male, homosexual & straight male, transsexual & straight male, male. Then you can have 6 kinds of female toilets, and add in sex-blendings such as total-unisex; heterosexual unisex; transsexual unisex etc. etc. Usually one doesn't have the real estate necessary to install a couple dozen kinds of potties, so I don't think full recognition of diversity is possible. So the government must decide whose interests to snub.

You're making the slippery slope fallacy. Having some unisex restrooms in addition to the sex-segregated restrooms is not going to lead us to the scenario you suggested. In fact in reality (and this is the crux of my argument) there are really three choices: Lifelong Male, Lifelong Female, and Miscellaneous.

Furthermore, you make this about interests. That the government bases its policies on interests and not on rights is PRECISELY why we have the government we have today where EVERYONE'S rights are being violated, all in the guise of serving our interests.

Someone who is gender confused or otherwise finds that lifelong male or lifelong female does not describe them, whether they are a transsexual or a hermaphrodite, has the SAME right to use the restrooms as any other person, and the SAME right to demand unique facilities as the males and females who believe in sex-segregated restrooms.

If not everybody has that right, then nobody has that right and we should stick with unisex restrooms anyway.

Edited by TuringAI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many places do have three restrooms now. Men, Women and Family. I suppose anyone (or multiple folks at once) could use the "family" bathroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact in reality (and this is the crux of my argument) there are really three choices: Lifelong Male, Lifelong Female, and Miscellaneous.
In fact there are any number of choices. Do you understand the nature of a "concept"? They are man-made. One concept is "human"; another is "man" versus "woman"; a third is "gay" versus "straight". There is no concept "miscellaneous".

You have yet to prove that there is any particular right to a certain kind of toilet. Why do transsexuals have a right to a third kind of toilet. What is the source of "toilet rights".

If not everybody has that right, then nobody has that right and we should stick with unisex restrooms anyway.
Nobody has a right to a toilet, period. So really, if you want to reduce this to a matter of rights, we should stick to no toilets on government property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact there are any number of choices. Do you understand the nature of a "concept"? They are man-made. One concept is "human"; another is "man" versus "woman"; a third is "gay" versus "straight". There is no concept "miscellaneous".

This is a matter of semantics. Miscellaneous is a context sensitive word which means 'that which exists but is not listed'. For example, in the context of 'lifelong male' and 'lifelong female' both being listed, miscellaneous would mean 'posessing a gender that is neither lifelong male nor lifelong female'. It is the logical compliment of 'lifelong male or lifelong female', in the same way that "I am not carrying a baseball bat" is logically complimentary to "I am carrying a baseball bat" in the context of "I am".

This is just like using 'unenumerated rights', which IS a concept (though it is based on other concepts) and certainly exists in the context of some constitutions, including the U.S. Constitution.

You have yet to prove that there is any particular right to a certain kind of toilet. Why do transsexuals have a right to a third kind of toilet. What is the source of "toilet rights".Nobody has a right to a toilet, period. So really, if you want to reduce this to a matter of rights, we should stick to no toilets on government property.

To be honest, as inconvenient as it is, this is the best option. Though it's gonna be a tough sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By "public property" (which exists), we mean "government-owned property", which clarifies that it is owned, not unowned. With government-owned property, yes, there simply is no issue of the individual property-owner's rights being dispositive for deciding policy questions about who gets to use the john. The rules have to be rationally and objectively justified. Then what should be the rule regarding toilets in the courthouse?This could justify entirely eliminating the distinction between men's rooms and women's rooms in government toilets, but it could not justify any policy regarding transsexuals as contrasted to normal men and women. The question is whether there is a rational foundation for having segregated toilets. First, is it the case that the government may have sex-segregated toilets? The answer is, clearly yes. Doing so violates nobody's rights -- everybody gets to pee, and no person has a right to pee in the same room as members of the opposite sex. Second, is it the case that the government must have sex-segregated toilets? The answer is, no: in fact, it is not even necessary that the government have toilets at all. Now here's a third question: is it absolutely necessary that there be closable doors on the stalls of government toilets? No, not absolutely; but it is very hard to imagine a situation where it would be necessary to have doorless stalls. Perhaps if there is some serious issue regarding crimes being committed in the stalls.

But should government toilets generally have stalls with doors that close? Yes, because even though it's physically possible to do your business in front of society, most people feel pretty uncomfortable doing so, and it does not serve any legitimate government interest to generally deprive people of this bit of privacy. In other words, the cultural fact that we want some privacy when doing our private business is a fact that the government may consider in establishing a general toilet policy.

One specific instance of that general interest in privacy is that men typically feel uncomfortable going to the bathroom with women hanging around outside the stall, and women feel the same way. If you don't like that fact, I suggest that you engage in some kind of educational program to widen the appeal of unisex johns. If the idea had merit, you could persuade private concerns to adopt unisex johns on their property. If this is actually an appealing idea to people and it catches on, then the cultural discomfort issue would be moot, and their would be no rational reason to have sex-segregated toilets just on government property.In the current context, that is certainly so. You have very good reason to believe that the person has some bad thing in mind (maybe just harassment and not rape).That reasoning only refers to the standards for criminal conviction. Toilet-invasion is closer to a civil dispute, where a woman's right to pee without men lurking outside the stall must also be considered.The issue then would be, did the accused violate a law, in which case the burden of proof argument would be relevant. There would have to be proof that the man did enter a women's room unlawfully. The issue is not whether he should be convicted for attempted rape, should he be convicted of cross-gender toilet invasion.Yes, but as I've pointed out, this transgender issue is a total red herring. It would be highly irrational and unjust to allow only transsexual men to enter the women's room.

What a Lously reply, the author does not know anything about law and he is saying that a person who has different gentillia has more in a matter of a civil lawsuit. This is untrue and false, there is no civil lawsuits about this that would be accepted by the courts. I do know one that was thrown out because a man had sued because woman were using the same bathrooms as him due to another bathroom being unusable after a music event. Most states don't even have statues regarding the topic, of course there are a few cities that have ordinances about different genders using bathrooms mostly antiquated , but a civil lawsuit and a person's right to use the toilet without different genitllia being around means that the author ought to do some legal consulting or homework before replying.

In Europe, we have unisex bathrooms, locker rooms, and spas no problem in countries such as finland ,netherlands, and Germany and for the record stalls themselves are private and while its true that somebody can peek over and voyer that is illegal because stalls are places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, not bathrooms again that is the proper reading of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And since there is no "right for a transsexual to use the women's room", that pretty much should end the discussion. You ought to be arguing for a general elimination of gender-segregated toilets on government property. And yet you're not, for some reason.

Maybe, but there is no supposed "right to privacy" or remedy for no opposite-sex gentials in a public restroom. Its a bit of a gray area as some cities have antiquated statues that have laws preventing this.

Men's and women's restrooms are more of a social custom, restrooms marked women are without urinals because women don't use them and are not designed to use them although they can buy a device to use them.

The "men's" and "women's" restrooms don't really exist becaues the language is a possessive form, kinda of like "Michael"'s or David's bathroom possessive. They are simply marked that way, of course

a few cities have statues which ban opposite-sex people from using bathrooms usually older-antiquated statues, some people or police try to use the "tresspass" laws, however do be aware its usually within the context of some person fooling around or breaking the law by voueyering . As for people who don't there is very little case law or decisions on the books, maybe a few decisions in trial courts where a person plead guilty to trespassing but not much established case law or decisions.

By the way genitllia is not used to define men and women , the law defines it in various raise, similary one can say an adopted child is not really a child biologially but the law says so which negates dave's point of law so to speak , of course people are entitled to their opinion and religious views so if he implied that than that's a different subject.

Similary, his comments on miscellanous , and man made terms being biased show that he may have a moral opinion which people are entitled to, but its certainly not man made and miscellanous means other terminilogies not listed as above, and the six-toilets is an exaggeration , you wouldn't even have homosexual toilets because you have the same problem as "supposed" of gays being attracted to eachother anyways, stalls are private too. I really don't see how how people are mixing up things and creating exaggerations are hyped based on non-established facts or supposed biases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a Lously reply,

What is a "Lously reply"?

the author does not know anything about law ...... In Europe, we have unisex bathrooms,

When you say the author doesn't know anything about law, whose law are you talking about; US or the law of various European countries?

I'm not sure if in your 2 minutes on this forum you have read any significant amount of David's posts, but your claim that he knows nothing about law is patently false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a Lously reply, the author does not know anything about law and he is saying that a person who has different gentillia has more in a matter of a civil lawsuit.
What an ignorant post. You might try reading some of the relevant posts to see what the argument actually is. FYI, it is that it is not a violation of anyone's rights to have sex-separated government-owned toilets. Toilet issues on private property are not properly the subject of statutory law, and at most a property owner would have a cause of action based on trespass or breach of contract. Of course that assumes a country where property rights are somewhat respected, as opposed to Europe. There is no "right to use the toilet", even if Europe claims there is such a right, much less a right to do so without different "genitllia" being around. You might have noticed that if you had read some of the recent posts.

However, one cannot be neutral on the question, and decision has to be made for government toilets. As long as there are sex-segregated government toilets (and they are abundant in Europe), the determinant of where you go to pee is whether or not you're swinging pipe. Violators should be ticketed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What an ignorant post. You might try reading some of the relevant posts to see what the argument actually is. FYI, it is that it is not a violation of anyone's rights to have sex-separated government-owned toilets. Toilet issues on private property are not properly the subject of statutory law, and at most a property owner would have a cause of action based on trespass or breach of contract. Of course that assumes a country where property rights are somewhat respected, as opposed to Europe. There is no "right to use the toilet", even if Europe claims there is such a right, much less a right to do so without different "genitllia" being around. You might have noticed that if you had read some of the recent posts.

However, one cannot be neutral on the question, and decision has to be made for government toilets. As long as there are sex-segregated government toilets (and they are abundant in Europe), the determinant of where you go to pee is whether or not you're swinging pipe. Violators should be ticketed.

Dave although its not against to law to have different restrooms marked man and woman, what your post sounded as if a customer or a patron of the opposite-sex would have a cause of action if somebody else entered the restroom.

Toilet issues are private property are not subject to statutory law? Well how are you defining private property dave, if you said somebodys home then its a different story, but you sounded as if you were referring to a business , then you are incorrect if thats what you were implying, they are subject to statutory law in a lot of cases, whether you and I don't like it. The government has every right and does regulate private businesses.

I will post an attachment and new post to debunk this.

Dave although its not against to law to have different restrooms marked man and woman, what your post sounded as if a customer or a patron of the opposite-sex would have a cause of action if somebody else entered the restroom.

Toilet issues are private property are not subject to statutory law? Well how are you defining private property dave, if you said somebodys home then its a different story, but you sounded as if you were referring to a business , then you are incorrect if thats what you were implying, they are subject to statutory law in a lot of cases, whether you and I don't like it. The government has every right and does regulate private businesses.

I will post an attachment and new post to debunk this.

Be advised, that I was also posting in reference to other comments on the website, such as claim that "woman have the right" or "men have the right" to use the bathroom without any opposite sex genitals being present, there are no such "rights" as in legal terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave although its not against to law to have different restrooms marked man and woman, what your post sounded as if a customer or a patron of the opposite-sex would have a cause of action if somebody else entered the restroom.
In the case of private property, the offended patron might (note the verb) have a cause against the owner. The primary limit on toilet ingress is via the owner's right to control who goes where (it's his property), so he could have a cause of action against the trespasser; but if the owner makes false representations about his toilets then a customer could have a cause of action against the owner. That's pretty remote, of course.
Toilet issues are private property are not subject to statutory law?
Unfortunately all private property is, in fact, subject to confiscation and regulation by the state, even your home. So we're only talking about ought's, not is's -- all Objectivists recognize that there are tons of improper laws. The person who set this TS subthread off implied that there were questions of criminality and "presumption of innocence" at stake; but he/she/it never showed that that is actually so, and I'm not aware of any specific Ohio state statutes regulating who can and cannot use the men's room. There should be no statutes governing private toilets. The only proper government involvement should be stating a rational policy for toilet usage in government facilities.
Well how are you defining private property dave, if you said somebodys home then its a different story, but you sounded as if you were referring to a business, then you are incorrect if thats what you were implying
I am asserting that businesses are private property; also, that regardless of the fact of being private property, ones property rights are nevertheless not respected by the state. The government has absolutely no right to regulate business.
I will post an attachment and new post to debunk this.
No, don't. Read up on the purpose of the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case of private property, the offended patron might (note the verb) have a cause against the owner. The primary limit on toilet ingress is via the owner's right to control who goes where (it's his property), so he could have a cause of action against the trespasser; but if the owner makes false representations about his toilets then a customer could have a cause of action against the owner. That's pretty remote, of course.Unfortunately all private property is, in fact, subject to confiscation and regulation by the state, even your home. So we're only talking about ought's, not is's -- all Objectivists recognize that there are tons of improper laws. The person who set this TS subthread off implied that there were questions of criminality and "presumption of innocence" at stake; but he/she/it never showed that that is actually so, and I'm not aware of any specific Ohio state statutes regulating who can and cannot use the men's room. There should be no statutes governing private toilets. The only proper government involvement should be stating a rational policy for toilet usage in government facilities.I am asserting that businesses are private property; also, that regardless of the fact of being private property, ones property rights are nevertheless not respected by the state. The government has absolutely no right to regulate business.No, don't. Read up on the purpose of the forum.

Sounds familiar as an argument, I am not sure how if an owner makes "false assumptions about a toilet" then a patron would have a claim of action, if a bathroom is marked man or woman and an opposite sex person enters , I still don't see how the other use of the bathroom would have a claim of action against the owners private property, unless the owner tried to eject him/her or confuse the patron as to what he/she is/was allowed to do which is remote.

As for regulatin businesses, many people they should be regulated, but many people that regulation should be more limited in scope and limited to situations where the owner clearly does a lot of wrongdoing and is intentionally disobey laws and standards. For instance many businesses with great reputations and stellar records may get hit with buracracy and fines while large businesses don't really suffer such the case in california where many businesses decided to pack up and leave.

However, many people believe in regulation, as for discrimination such a racism, or health and safety laws, the idea being that is not as a home and its a place where other people , are a business open to general public interact, engage, and do commerce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds familiar as an argument, I am not sure how if an owner makes "false assumptions about a toilet" then a patron would have a claim of action, if a bathroom is marked man or woman and an opposite sex person enters , I still don't see how the other use of the bathroom would have a claim of action against the owners private property, unless the owner tried to eject him/her or confuse the patron as to what he/she is/was allowed to do which is remote.
I wouldn't advocate trying to make such an argument and collecting on it, but it would go along the following lines. The owner has obtained some value from a customer, in exchange for a value given to the customer which includes in part the use of the toilet. The owner represents the toilet in a particular way, as being sex-segregated such that women will not invade the men's rooms and vice versa. But the owner knowingly and egregiously allows men to use the women's room, in breach of his implied warranty. As I said, it's a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...