It's a toilet.
December 12, 2015 3:16 PM   Subscribe

At an alarming, unprecedented 100% success rate, literally every participant in my focus group correctly identified the abstract, gender-neutral concept I came up with to identify a restroom. Update: Printable Gender Neutral Bathroom Signs Project. Double Update: this is now a thing.
posted by aniola (110 comments total) 23 users marked this as a favorite
 
Presumably the concept still holds for squat toilet parts of the worlds, if not the image.
posted by aniola at 3:16 PM on December 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


I remember the years where you had to solve some intelligence test to find the right toilet as they would labelled 'gangster' and 'moll' or 'caeser' and 'cleopatra'... which may sound easy enough but not when written in a barely legible hand written font in a dimly lit nightclub with several drinks down you... 'Oh sorry, ladies!'
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:23 PM on December 12, 2015 [31 favorites]


I remember the years where you had to solve some intelligence test to find the right toilet

One bar I used to frequent had "MEN" and "WOMEN" on the doors....each with an arrow pointing to the other door.
posted by Celsius1414 at 3:28 PM on December 12, 2015 [6 favorites]


In some old pubs in Ireland where there just one bathroom, the sign just says "toilet". Everyone understands.
posted by mermayd at 3:37 PM on December 12, 2015 [16 favorites]


If you put one of those signs up in a bar it'll last about ten minutes before someone draws a mirror-image "handle" and converts it into a picture of an angry, flat-headed muppet.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:39 PM on December 12, 2015


I noticed at an airport in Asia recently (maybe Jakarta?) that each stall had a sign on the front indicating whether it was a sit toilet or squat toilet, so somebody already has this iconography done for that too.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 3:41 PM on December 12, 2015 [5 favorites]


What's wrong with a sign that just reads "WC"?
posted by thecaddy at 3:54 PM on December 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


I mean, I get it and I've used them, but I have no idea what "WC" stands for.
posted by dogwalker at 4:04 PM on December 12, 2015


What's wrong with a sign that just reads "WC"?

It's pleasant and gender-neutral, but I had never heard of "WC" until I was in junior high, and even then only as an antiquated thing. Sure, after some time, it'd become well known again, but people aren't going to want to wait for that. But I could identify this regardless of my age (presuming I was old enough to be toilet trained) and language.
posted by gloriouslyincandescent at 4:04 PM on December 12, 2015


I would assume it was reserved for either Wilt Chamberlain's or Wilf Carter's exclusive use.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:06 PM on December 12, 2015 [6 favorites]


WC is quite common as a polyglot sign in Europe and Asia.
posted by Nelson at 4:08 PM on December 12, 2015 [6 favorites]


WC stands for water closet.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:11 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Has Jack Paar died in vain?
posted by DanSachs at 4:13 PM on December 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


I'm trying to come up with something about conservative politicians, airport restrooms, and water world, but the pieces just aren't coming together.
posted by idiopath at 4:15 PM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Just use a squating unicorn for squat toilets! No not that squatting unicorn!
posted by jeffburdges at 4:38 PM on December 12, 2015


It absolutely dumbfounds me that otherwise clear-thinking people are still willing to endorse 'separate but equal' institutionalized segregation of human beings as a conscionable principle.

There are plenty of good reasons to have gender-neutral restrooms but this doesn't seem like a good analogy for all kinds of reasons.
posted by atoxyl at 4:49 PM on December 12, 2015 [9 favorites]


Nearly every establishment in the small town I was raised called these unisex toilets. Then when I moved the city, I really noticed the separation. I became accustomed to it. However, I still have weird flashbacks when I'm at work and walk into the men's room finding all the stalls occupied. I instantly think, oh, I'll just go use the other bathroom, then realize that would not work out so well!
Oh, how I wish they were all gender neutral to avoid the question: Can I make it to the bathroom on another floor of the building without having to abruptly tell my boss I need to leave?
posted by Muncle at 4:50 PM on December 12, 2015


It absolutely dumbfounds me that otherwise clear-thinking people are still willing to endorse 'separate but equal' institutionalized segregation of human beings as a conscionable principle.

Well, I'm definitely against that. And I'm obviously 100% on board with anyone identifying in a way that would lead them to feel most comfortable using a bathroom labelled as "women's" to do so, freely and without discrimination. And clearly, private 1-person washrooms should labelled as up for grabs for anyone (I've just been using them that way forever and assume everyone else has, anyway).

But I'm not 100% sure how I feel about sharing group, non-private bathrooms (with e.g. very short doors in front of the stalls) with people who don't identify roughly in the ball-park and aren't familiar or willing to become so with possible goings-on. I.e. there are certain times I probably would not be thrilled with the idea of your average dude-bro being in there, kwim?
posted by cotton dress sock at 4:53 PM on December 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


In places in Ireland that do have segregated toilets, they sometimes have the details in Irish. Who should use the door with "mná" on do you think? No, not a man. They use "fir", but you would be surprised how many people go "m for male, f for female, yeah".
posted by Iteki at 4:56 PM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


I remember the years where you had to solve some intelligence test to find the right toilet

My favorite, found at a marina: inboard and outboard.
posted by carmicha at 4:57 PM on December 12, 2015 [7 favorites]


I am baffled at why they are gender specific if it's just 2 single rooms. I use either one in that case.

It would take a little adjustment but I don't think I'd have a problem with larger mixed gender bathrooms. I can't see that ever really happening, though.
posted by jeweled accumulation at 5:04 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I've seen "Republicans" and "Democrats" at the White Dog Cafe in Philadelphia (which is mentioned in this NYT article) - the problem there is that political affiliation is just correlated enough to gender that you start to think.
posted by madcaptenor at 5:04 PM on December 12, 2015


I've seen "Republicans" and "Democrats" at the White Dog Cafe in Philadelphia

I'm afraid to ask where Libertarians go ....
posted by tilde at 5:09 PM on December 12, 2015 [8 favorites]


larger mixed gender bathrooms.

I'm ok with it as long as the doors in front of the stalls go ceiling-to-floor. (There are times you just need a bit of privacy, or I do…)
posted by cotton dress sock at 5:09 PM on December 12, 2015 [6 favorites]


I am 100% for segregated toilets. There'd be one set of toilets for those of us who use the facilities in accordance with their intentions, clean up after ourselves, and leave the rest room as tidy as we found it.

And then there's the rest of you.
posted by Thella at 5:10 PM on December 12, 2015 [39 favorites]


There's an ancient Benny Hill skit involving double-door entries to gendered bathrooms in Germany. With one door open for each, the half-signs read |MEN and HER|. With both doors shut: DA|MEN and HER|REN.
posted by kurumi at 5:18 PM on December 12, 2015 [12 favorites]


My two favorite solutions from a recent trip to Stockholm:
* Two restrooms, one labelled "Toilets" and the other "Toilets and Urinals".
* Two doors, one labelled "Men" and one "Women", which both opened into the same room.
posted by phooky at 5:19 PM on December 12, 2015 [17 favorites]


The single commode bathroom in my home is gender neutral. I don't know why I should expect anything different in public. And seriously, as Theila says, clean up after yourself.
posted by Roger Dodger at 5:19 PM on December 12, 2015 [6 favorites]


I've seen "Republicans" and "Democrats" at the White Dog Cafe in Philadelphia

I'm afraid to ask where Libertarians go ....


On the ground, negatively affecting everyone else and expecting it to get cleaned up by the free market without putting in any effort themselves.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:20 PM on December 12, 2015 [72 favorites]


Bathrooms at the hunt club: Pointers and Setters
posted by hal9k at 5:20 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I prefer the Restroom Gender signs created by this wonderful Twitterbot, but this is nice too.

Also, bonus points for this sign coming from Philly!
posted by SansPoint at 5:21 PM on December 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


It wouldn't be language independent.

Anyone recognizes letter shapes (cf. the international standard "ℹ" for information). Also, that US "action part" isn't exactly culturally independent. Not entirely clear to me if the "designer" has ever been outside that coffee shop :)

(somewhat related, the country with the most native English speakers we have here in Europe apparently use "PC" for restrooms on their maps, not "WC". It seems they've just decided to switch to a graphic symbol, though (that's map scale, so at least binary gender neutral). No letters involved, but the designer's initials are WC.)
posted by effbot at 5:22 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Joe in Australia I see that as a feature, not a bug.
posted by SansPoint at 5:26 PM on December 12, 2015


I'm a big fan of the term "omnisex."
posted by aniola at 5:33 PM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


The primary objection to the toilet icon is that it's a toilet icon. One should never actually refer to a toilet, of course, but use euphemisms such as "wash up", "powder my nose", or "drop some friends off at the pool".
posted by Justinian at 5:35 PM on December 12, 2015 [6 favorites]


Justinian "I need to see a man about a horse."
posted by SansPoint at 5:36 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


But I'm not 100% sure how I feel about sharing group, non-private bathrooms

Yeah, I think this is definitely where a possible gray area emerges. It's great if the legal requirement to have separated restrooms were done away with. BUT, if women or other vulnerable groups feel that having their own shared restroom would create a "safe space", similar to women only gyms, then that should be okay too.
posted by FJT at 5:38 PM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I mean I'm not in the least concerned about the ridiculous "wolf in sheep's clothing" inanity that some sad people are worried about for dumb non-reasons. People who feel most comfortable in "women" labelled spaces should be there, period.

(There's just that one week a month, really. And, I guess, I've not enjoyed the few times I've been at a club, gone in for a break from the atmosphere, and seen a bunch of drunken, aggressive fools bust in yelling for someone called Jen or whatever, staring everyone down and making people uncomfortable. I'd probably not like to see those types around, any time. [You might say that I should consider going to places where that sort of thing wouldn't happen, and you'd probably be right, but you've got to shake off the cobwebs every now and then :/])
posted by cotton dress sock at 5:58 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


If I saw that I'd assume it was a woman's bathroom. The seat is down, after all!
posted by banished at 6:05 PM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


What exactly is the argument against 100% private toilets in all new construction? It offers better privacy, and gender-neutrality, and doesn't seem like it costs much more, especially if you have a shared sink space.
posted by schmod at 6:06 PM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


I understand that urinals are much more space- and cost-effective than commodes. Maybe there could be one room for urinals and one with cubicles?
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:16 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


And, I guess, I've not enjoyed the few times I've been at a club, gone in for a break from the atmosphere, and seen a bunch of drunken, aggressive fools bust in yelling for someone called Jen or whatever, staring everyone down and making people uncomfortable. I'd probably not like to see those types around, any time.

Yeah, oftentimes just the general atmosphere in the men's room, especially a big open one, at a crowded bar/venue/stadium with a lot of drinking and excitement is something that already makes a guy like me pretty uncomfortable, and I can only imagine even worse and grosser stuff happening if there were women around. This would probably be ameliorated somewhat if bathrooms in general were slowly shifting to gender-neutral, but in the short-term that seems horrible.

There are definitely grey areas here. There is also the little talked about aspect of there being people with religious beliefs that would preclude them from pooping next to a person of a different gender. I do not have strong feelings on that beyond general sadness, I just never hear it mentioned.

What exactly is the argument against 100% private toilets in all new construction? It offers better privacy, and gender-neutrality, and doesn't seem like it costs much more, especially if you have a shared sink space.

The lines outside the shared restrooms. I abhor being around people during those certain times, and love the "bunch of small mini-bathrooms clustered around a sink" set-up, but there unfortunately are a lot of places that need to service the needs of a lot of people all at once. Imagine a football game at half-time. There is already violence in those bathrooms.
posted by neonrev at 6:19 PM on December 12, 2015


I have, since becoming even remotely aware of the politics behind the gendering of toilet facilities, advocated for exactly this. But I have always taken this further: urinals are (for those who can use them in a hygienic manner) less wasteful of time and water, and easier to clean besides! The system should account for this in a way that de-genders the urinal itself.

What you should put on the door is a pictorial list of facilities available inside: sit-down toilets, urinals, sinks, tampon dispensers, pad dispensers, baby changing stations, swinging boom arms to assist getting onto the toilet, prophylactics dispensers, blow dryers, paper towels…

Let everyone decide for themselves whether or not they belong in the room with the urinals. What they need to know is which room has which things, so they can make informed decisions without the noise of misplaced gender cues.

And what's more, with an icon of that basket of tampons on the door it'll likely be much easier for people to tap staff on the shoulder and say "Excuse me, but you've run out."
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 6:24 PM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]


Private toilets are hella more expensive to clean and maintain than restrooms with stalls, is the primary reason. Not much more expensive to build, but they take a LOT more staff time to keep clean and maintain.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:29 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Hades, that's exactly what happens in many buildings. Others have two commodes on the women's side, and one urinal and one commode on the men's.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:36 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Private toilets are hella more expensive to clean and maintain than restrooms with stalls, is the primary reason. Not much more expensive to build, but they take a LOT more staff time to keep clean and maintain.

Oh yeah, this. I've been a janitor of some stripe most of my working life, and this is very, very true. Also more people will do things and leave behind things in a private restroom that they would not do in an open one.
Also, if you provide the public a door that locks and contains only them some people will see it as a great place to masturbate, have sex and do assorted drugs. That is a big downer on business, and makes life hell when someone's just spent 45 minutes in there and you get to play the semen/ruined toilet/paraphernalia roulette. It's almost always semen.
posted by neonrev at 6:43 PM on December 12, 2015 [12 favorites]


Which is why in the plans for the new building they'll be constructing for my employer soon, the women's toilets will have three stalls while the men's toilets will have one stall and one urinal. Wait a minute...

Hades, that's exactly what happens in many buildings. Others have two commodes on the women's side, and one urinal and one commode on the men's.

Except in the building where I did most of my research as a gradate student, apparently, where there was a urinal and a commode in the men's room (or so I was led to believe - I never entered it) and just the single commode in the women's room. At certain times (after seminar, at the end of the day) it was not uncommon for a line of two or three women to appear by the door. grumble grumble that's sexism in academia for you

Anyway, my current workplace has just converted a trio of private washrooms to be gender-neutral on the ground floor. Old habits die hard, though, I still find myself reaching for the door handle on the one that used to be marked "Women" even though the signage on all three on all is nearly identical (save for the accessible one for wheelchair users.)
posted by invokeuse at 6:59 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I lived for a number of years in a small town at the edge of a large wilderness area. Towards the end of the summer tourist season one year, when the bar was mostly full of locals, there was one conspicuously out-of-town couple at one end of the bar. Eventually the husband felt the call fo nature, got up, walked to the restrooms, and stood and looked at the doors for a few moments. He then turned back to his wife and yelled out, 'honey, am I a buck or a doe?' Picture hundreds of cricket DJs scratching their tiny records to a stop and you get an idea of the scene.
posted by Makwa at 7:03 PM on December 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


Apropos, is it just me or is the standard symbol for "women" kind of weird, even as an abstraction? What sort of garment starts flaring at the underarms and doesn't stop until the knees? Why don't cartoon women have waists?
posted by jackbishop at 7:25 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


schmod: "What exactly is the argument against 100% private toilets in all new construction?"

I'd bet going from two - two stall bathrooms to four private bathrooms would double the cost of those facilities. Moving the sinks to a yet another room would probably be even more expensive when you start figuring in square footage and servicing that square footage. Going from two 6 stall toilets to 12 single user rest rooms would be hideously expensive.
posted by Mitheral at 7:33 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I was in a bathroom in a restaurant in London, in which all the sinks were behind a single door, and that room had several doors with toilets marked for either men or women. A shared washroom seemed fine in theory, at least until I was washing my hands and saw a man come out of one of the toilet stalls, zip his fly, straighten his collar in the mirror, and... grab the handle of the door to let himself out. It was a pull door, so there was no way to avoid grabbing the handle he had just cockfingered.

So my plea: push doors to exit on all bathrooms, please. And wash your hands, yo.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:22 PM on December 12, 2015 [5 favorites]


What sort of garment starts flaring at the underarms and doesn't stop until the knees?

An empire dress looks closest.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 9:05 PM on December 12, 2015


I think doorknobs are bound to harbour all kinds of things. (I've seen some ladies forget or just decide not to wash their hands. Rarely, but it happens.) If I'm somewhere that's causing me to actively reflect on what's on the doorknob (this is mostly limited to gas stations), I might use a tissue (and chuck it in the first available bin past the door), but I think that's mostly just a psychological comfort. Odds are we're all two degrees from being cockfingered at any time. (Bravo for that one, I liked it.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:13 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


Doorknobs tend to be made out of smooth metal so they are going to be among the least germ-harboring items you touch all day.

Ironically, the soap dispensers are going to be much filthier. How many public places do you think clean the insides of the soap dispensers? Think about that.
posted by Justinian at 9:54 PM on December 12, 2015 [4 favorites]


I'm afraid to ask where Libertarians go ....

They're the ones who just installed the coin-operated lock on the bathrooms' doors? It's only sensible really.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:15 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


There was a Korean restaurant near my office labeled buoys and gulls.
posted by cookie-k at 10:21 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I remember the years where you had to solve some intelligence test to find the right toilet as they would labelled 'gangster' and 'moll' or 'caeser' and 'cleopatra'... which may sound easy enough but not when written in a barely legible hand written font in a dimly lit nightclub with several drinks down you... 'Oh sorry, ladies!'

A shitty bar in my neighborhood has a lotus flower and... a cobra.

It still pisses me off just thinking about it.
posted by emptythought at 10:23 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]


I play cards at a local gay bar. They have three restrooms, one for men, one for women (both of these are multi-stall), and a single commode restroom that's unisex with the typical binary signage. I'm going to show this to the owner, because it makes much more sense.

Thanks for sharing this!
posted by disclaimer at 10:36 PM on December 12, 2015


They're the ones who just installed the coin-operated lock on the bathrooms' doors? It's only sensible really.

Weirdly, as Metafilter has discussed before, the US is the world leader in getting rid of pay toilets, despite also being the world leader in Objectivist libertarians childish self-deluding whiners. Which proves that democracy can work and everyone just needs to keep mocking these idiots until they all go and live on an oil rig to dance for eternity while their insane idiot god Peter Thiel stuffs Bitcoins into their Speedo's. It's good work you're doing, keep it up.
posted by howfar at 11:00 PM on December 12, 2015 [3 favorites]


I can't go through any thread on signs for restrooms without linking to the one at the Sci-Fi Museum.

Which is, of course, incorrect.
posted by ckape at 11:14 PM on December 12, 2015


What sort of garment starts flaring at the underarms and doesn't stop until the knees?

It was never a dress...
posted by cirhosis at 12:21 AM on December 13, 2015 [17 favorites]


(somewhat related, the country with the most native English speakers we have here in Europe apparently use "PC" for restrooms on their maps, not "WC". It seems they've just decided to switch to a graphic symbol, though

Hi, I live Britain and I have no idea what you're talking about. A PC is a computer, and a WC is a toilet, same as everywhere else...
posted by Dysk at 2:01 AM on December 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


From my perspective, absolutely, polychora - longer doors would definitely promote enough of a sense of privacy for me to feel safe in 99.99% of the places I might go - shopping malls, work environments (any place open during business hours), restaurants, etc. I definitely agree that anyone preferring to use a bathroom currently labelled for "men" - anyone, everyone - should enjoy the sense of safety that privacy (via long doors on stalls) provides.

There is a very limited set of spaces, that .01%, for me, in which a long door in front of a stall might not be enough to feel as safe as I'd like - as neonrev mentioned, packed clubs and stadiums, where there's a lot of alcohol going around, and the possibility of high emotion and the kind of violence [or even just a threatening atmosphere] that is, as of now, usually gendered - probably for all the reasons you've said, I agree. (I understand that risk of experiencing violence is higher for men* than women* in those settings (as the violence that most frequently occurs is in the form of brawls, riots, hooliganism, etc., and I guess we've got some folks we could say are the usual suspects for that stuff - "certain men"), but there can be a sense of threat that's just uncomfortable and, unfortunately, gendered.)

I completely support the idea of creating safe vs. gendered spaces, though.

(I have a feeling a great majority of women and people identifying in non-binary ways would rush to the safe spaces, leaving the unsafe spaces for "certain men", and I have no idea how that would work out logistically in a stadium, but someone smarter than me could figure it out and I'd be happy for them to do so.)

*By "men" and "women" I mean anyone presenting along those lines, though I'm positive the risk must be highest for people who do not easily fit those categorizations.
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:13 AM on December 13, 2015


phooky: was that Jamie Oliver's at Hotel Anglaise?
posted by Iteki at 3:56 AM on December 13, 2015


Hi, I live Britain and I have no idea what you're talking about. A PC is a computer, and a WC is a toilet, same as everywhere else...

That's because, until very recently, OS maps used a bizarrely outdated bit of terminology (Public Convenience) to indicate where, on this fair isle, the bogs* are located.

*Public conveniences
posted by howfar at 4:13 AM on December 13, 2015 [4 favorites]


Well, I'm a woman, and I'm uncomfortable around urinals. I don't like to see surprise cock, and I've been flashed enough times in my life to feel certain that urinals in unisex bathrooms would provide a sizeable minority of guys with enough plausable deniability for it to become a regular feature of Using Public Bathrooms While Female. (Also, I know that some men would be very uncomfortable using the urinal when there are women around, and I'd feel sorry to inconvenience them.)

So I have my doubts about just separating Toilets from Toilets & Urinals. Maybe I'm wrong but I think fewer women would be inclined to use the one with urinals than the other way around, so the practical result would be more options for men and slightly less for women. And that sucks, considering that queues to women's bathrooms in places with lots of folk tend to be longer anyway.

If it's just single rooms, I'm all for unisex.
posted by sively at 5:06 AM on December 13, 2015 [9 favorites]


Appropriate Fisherspooner song
posted by jeffburdges at 6:06 AM on December 13, 2015


I think the idea of a grass-roots, bottom-up, opt-in 'safe space' is very different from a system of top-down institutional segregation that is imposed on people from above....

As per a recent thread on regulations, today's grass-roots, bottom-up, opt-in 'safe space' is tomorrow's top-down institutional segregated norms. There was an era when restrooms (such as they were -- and they often weren't) weren't gender-segregated -- which meant they were, implicitly or at times explicitly, reserved for men. Regulations requiring the establishment of women's restrooms isn't a way for the government to impose gender upon the populace -- it's a way for the government to mitigate the effects of the cultural concept of gender (and, more explicitly, the gender hierarchy) upon those individuals who would otherwise have been ignored.

Unisexed multi-stalled bathrooms in buildings too large for single-stalled restrooms worry me for any number of reasons. (Even if we dismiss the issues associated with flashing, for example, in most public buildings, the restroom is pretty much the only place to get a tiny amount of privacy.) If gender weren't hierarchical, it'd be a far easier system to dismiss -- but (as with many other cases involving gender) I feel like these kinds of discussions wind up pitting non-binary gendered individuals against the historical protections and cultural norms that exist to benefit women rather than actually targeting male privilege itself.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 6:29 AM on December 13, 2015 [7 favorites]


Seventy-two comments in and nobody has posted schmoyoho's take on (mixed) public restrooms yet?

How to Use a Public Restroom.

"Who designed these stall doors, and why is there a crack? He saw me with my pants down and I can never take it back."
posted by effbot at 7:02 AM on December 13, 2015


I feel like these kinds of discussions wind up pitting non-binary gendered individuals against the historical protections and cultural norms that exist to benefit women rather than actually targeting male privilege itself.

Quoted for emphasis!

I feel bad that I can't be a better ally in this matter to people who are disadvantaged by the gendered bathroom status quo. But I'm really not keen to have men in shared bathrooms. Going completely unisex would come at a cost of diminished comfort and safety for women.
posted by sively at 7:11 AM on December 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


Can we please not do the "My gender has better bathroom hygiene than yours" thing in here?
posted by schmod at 7:46 AM on December 13, 2015 [4 favorites]



Apropos, is it just me or is the standard symbol for "women" kind of weird, even as an abstraction?


Eszter Hargitai at Crooked Timber a while ago posted pictures of bathroom signage for male/female that were used and made the point clear one way or another.

pictures
post

Most but not all involve clothing.
posted by mark k at 7:47 AM on December 13, 2015


Can we please not do the "My gender has better bathroom hygiene than yours" thing in here?

Huh, I've completely missed any such arguments in this thread. FWIW, I used to clean bathrooms when working in restaurants, cafés and such, and IME there's some difference in how the mess is created (e.g. spraying around while peeing vs. leaving used sanitary pads on the floor), but the general level of yuck was just about equal.
posted by sively at 8:18 AM on December 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


A cafe I visited in Pennsylvania had album covers posted on the restroom doors: "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" on one, and "Physical" on the other.

Y'know, because they were both by people named John, and these were the two johns, so....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:23 AM on December 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


I'm a US person who has lived on and off in England. My experience has been that the vast majority of English public toilets that have multiple cubicles/stalls have the doors and walls running from almost-the-floor to very-very-high (in some cases, there are full walls between/at the front of cubicles, and sometimes in those cases, normal door things to get in and out), as opposed to US toilet stalls/cubicles that have doors and walls that run from about knee height (upper-calf?) to possibly 6ish feet? 6-and-a-bit? And huge gaps where the walls and doors meet, too. This sort of thing makes a difference as far as feeling comfortable in an all-genders, multiple-toilet space. (Hell, it makes a difference as far as feeling comfortable in a single-gender, multiple-toilet space.)

And I have been in at least one all-gender, multiple-toilet space, in what was possibly a university building in Siena? Again, a multi-toilet room, but the cubicles were either completely enclosed or the gaps between the floor/ceiling and the doors/walls were maybe 1-2 inches. It's possible to get this right.

I mean, yes, this is cheaper than this, but idk, dignity? Can we not splurge a little?
posted by you must supply a verb at 9:03 AM on December 13, 2015 [4 favorites]


Am I the only claustrophobe who prefers the stalls to the tiny rooms? I don't care if you can peep through and see my knees. I do care if I can escape easily should things go wrong.
posted by dame at 10:11 AM on December 13, 2015 [3 favorites]


Apropos of escaping, my family and I visited Krka national park in Croatia this fall (which is amazing, if you ever get a chance to visit) and the lock on the stall she was in got stuck, and to get her out we had to help her climb over the partition (there was a helpful ledge in the next stall).

The dorm I lived in my last year of college had multi-stall coed bathrooms, and it wasn't a problem. No urinals, though.
posted by leahwrenn at 10:44 AM on December 13, 2015


I've said this before, but:
here at Chez Too-Ticky, we have two toilets. One is meant for sitting, one for standing.
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:56 AM on December 13, 2015


I mean, yes, this is cheaper than this, but idk, dignity? Can we not splurge a little?

That would be ok with me (in our current setup as well - sorry, dame, privacy > escape hatch, for me).

I've seen unisex private stalls at some smaller bars/clubs (often with a little mirror and tiny sink within) and it's worked out fine; there's usually an attendant in the common area to keep check on potential shenanigans, though, in that case. (Also, stalls + shared sinks at restaurants and cafes [no attendant], fine there too.)

Unisexed multi-stalled bathrooms in buildings too large for single-stalled restrooms worry me for any number of reasons. (Even if we dismiss the issues associated with flashing, for example, in most public buildings, the restroom is pretty much the only place to get a tiny amount of privacy.) If gender weren't hierarchical, it'd be a far easier system to dismiss -- but (as with many other cases involving gender) I feel like these kinds of discussions wind up pitting non-binary gendered individuals against the historical protections and cultural norms that exist to benefit women rather than actually targeting male privilege itself.

Hmm, yes, good points there and above, steady-state strawberry.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:20 PM on December 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


I was really weirded out a couple years ago when my wife and I went to a Pink concert and I went to pee and there was a line of women going into both bathrooms. Guys using the urinals and women using the stalls. as far as I know this was something that just happened and wasn't set up by the venue. It was a little awkward, but seemed to work.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 3:50 PM on December 13, 2015


But the women who would be uncomfortable sharing facilities with men didn't have to.
posted by Mitheral at 4:34 PM on December 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


but (as with many other cases involving gender) I feel like these kinds of discussions wind up pitting non-binary gendered individuals against the historical protections and cultural norms that exist to benefit women rather than actually targeting male privilege itself.

I don't think the push for unisex/non-gendered bathrooms is about targeting male privilege as much as it is about making it safe for trans or non-binary people to go to the bathroom in public places.
posted by jaguar at 6:48 PM on December 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


What sort of garment starts flaring at the underarms and doesn't stop until the knees?

An empire dress looks closest.


I'd say trapeze rather than empire, or even on that link, tent more than empire.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 6:54 PM on December 13, 2015


What sort of garment starts flaring at the underarms and doesn't stop until the knees?

Hanbok would seem to fit…
posted by Lexica at 7:17 PM on December 13, 2015


I don't think the push for unisex/non-gendered bathrooms is about targeting male privilege as much as it is about making it safe for trans or non-binary people to go to the bathroom in public places.

This is true.

But also, regarding the broader conversation I thought steady-state strawberry was referring to, addressing male privilege is a related but slightly different concern than the one polychora was talking about earlier - i.e., addressing the arbitrary and essentializing categorization of people by gender, full stop.

I think the catch that steady-state strawberry pointed out might be that the existing hierarchy, arbitrary and cultural though it may be, is entrenched, and continues to have consequences for people defined within it; addressing the power balance inherent within it involves using existing categories to redress imbalances. (Unless there's another way that I haven't thought of, which is completely possible.)

E.g. defining spaces as "safe"… I think that's a fine idea, but I guess the question then becomes either "safe for whom?", or at least "safe from whom?".

I'm ok with the answer to the first being "those who feel threatened", but in practice this probably means "women, *trans, and non-binary people", because it seems (though I could be wrong and would kindly ask for correction, if anyone is up for that, and apologize for the work involved if it's needed :/) that the people most who do feel threatened would like protection from are "men" (or "certain men").

So it does seem that there is a slight contradiction, in this one instance of those big, hard-to-manage spaces - in order to help people feel safe, keeping the idea of gender is useful for one group, but not for the other. In order for others to feel safe, in those spaces, destabilizing the idea of gender is useful, less so for others.

A possible answer might be, "deal with the threatening factor" ("men", probably), except for the fact that this again relies on the distinctions with which some take issue.

Where unisex bathrooms are manageable (most places), this isn't a concern, obviously.
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:50 PM on December 13, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't know if greater recognition of multiple axes of identification, working with existing infrastructures, and doing so in a flexible way might be a way to go that would be acceptable to more people.

(For example, at my local pool this summer, there was signage at several prominent places in the entryway, the halls leading up to the change rooms, and on the change room doors indicating that "all gender expressions and body types" were welcome. The city also offered a few swim times during the week for women-only swims, for those whose religion or preference made that important. In Vancouver, one recreation centre has a gender-neutral space as well as the traditional gendered ones.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:28 PM on December 13, 2015


So one of the best places in the world is the Liquidrom. Seriously, it's incredible, go there, it's a giant heated and salted pool under a concrete dome you just float in. Nobody can talk, too many echoes, but there might be music. Underwater.

They in fact have doors for the male and female locker room. But it's one room.

Ah, Berlin.
posted by effugas at 9:04 PM on December 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


(For example, at my local pool this summer, there was signage at several prominent places in the entryway, the halls leading up to the change rooms, and on the change room doors indicating that "all gender expressions and body types" were welcome. The city also offered a few swim times during the week for women-only swims, for those whose religion or preference made that important. In Vancouver, one recreation centre has a gender-neutral space as well as the traditional gendered ones.)

The fact that "all gender expressions and body types" is being contrasted with "women-only" makes me somewhat suspicious, as women can in fact embody all gender expressions and body types. Inclusivity is great, inclusivity only on these days, between these hours, on these conditions, less so.
posted by Dysk at 2:56 AM on December 14, 2015


The fact that "all gender expressions and body types" is being contrasted with "women-only" makes me somewhat suspicious, as women can in fact embody all gender expressions and body types. Inclusivity is great, inclusivity only on these days, between these hours, on these conditions, less so.

As I read it, the distinction isn't between women and non-women, it's between those who prefer broad inclusivity and those who prefer a safer space (both of which are legitimate priorities). The distinction is self-selected. [That's why HBCUs are permitted to continue. Black students have the option of choosing to attend, but they are not required to, and non-black students are allowed (actually encouraged) to attend as well.]
posted by Octaviuz at 5:06 AM on December 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


My point was about who was getting excluded from the safer space, actually, as implied by the wording.
posted by Dysk at 6:03 AM on December 14, 2015


I think the catch that steady-state strawberry pointed out might be that the existing hierarchy ... is entrenched, and continues to have consequences for people defined within it; addressing the power balance inherent within it involves using existing categories to redress imbalances....

E.g. defining spaces as "safe"… I think that's a fine idea, but I guess the question then becomes either "safe for whom?", or at least "safe from whom?".


Exactly.

Saying that unisex restrooms allow trans* / non-binary gendered individuals to use the restroom in public, and so therefore we ought to have unisex restrooms as an option, is one thing. Saying that, because unisex restrooms are better for trans* / non-binary gendered individuals, we ought to turn single sex restrooms into some kind of optional bottom-up "safe space" (as opposed to the top-down institutionalized implementation of unisex restrooms, I guess?) fails to engage with why certain individuals might want that "safe space" and what the absence of that space does to the individuals who want it.

In the absence of 'eyes on the street' (and, sometimes, even in its presence), a lot of public spaces that are theoretically available to everyone -- subways, city parks, parking lots, sidewalks -- wind up being reserved for men, thanks to the threat of sexual assault. The mechanisms we've put in place to protect women (e.g., gender-segragated bathrooms) are admittedly pathetic, but they're mechanisms none the less. Eliminating those mechanisms in the name of destroying the gender binary doesn't eliminate the need for them -- it just means that those spaces are no longer safe for individual women to enter. A unisex, multi-stalled bathroom in a dive bar is a bathroom that I no longer feel comfortable using, and it's frustrating that these conversations always wind up dismissing that dynamic.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 8:14 AM on December 14, 2015 [6 favorites]


My point was about who was getting excluded from the safer space, actually, as implied by the wording.

I can't say I know much about who is meant by "women" in that context (not having gone at those hours or inquired about it); my understanding is that the women-only swims are there primarily to accommodate Muslim women who could not swim in the presence of men (as well as, I guess, other women who have personal, non-religious reasons).

My memory of the gender inclusive signage at my pool is that it was up most of the summer (though I could be wrong, but I don't think so). Currently, there's one facility in town (that I know of) with 100% unisex change rooms - that one does have a time specifically dedicated to "open and inclusive" swim (for which blinds are closed), but that definitely doesn't preclude people from swimming at other times.

I think Vancouver and Toronto are aiming to do more for inclusivity. (Follow-up to that earlier article here.) I'm not familiar with too much of the discussion around this (and appreciate everyone's patience here!), though it seems from those articles that none of these solutions are unanimously uncontested (with e.g. some trans* people preferring gendered change rooms).
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:09 PM on December 14, 2015


One thing that I see fucked up quite a lot (and which it sounds like your pool falls under) is the language around inclusivity, particularly as concerns gender. Like, if you're going to explicitly signal that trans people are welcome at one time, and women another, that will read like trans people aren't welcome in the women-only sessions, even if you intend for trans women to very much be welcome. If you explicitly include in some areas but not others, you are implicitly excluding in those areas. I don't think people always realise this. It's like the exception that proves the rule.
posted by Dysk at 2:40 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


I can see that, yes. I think, though, that fundamentally, it's an attempt by the city to juggle the needs of different groups, given very diverse demographics. It's an attempt at a compromise, a way of sharing a public resource. I think it's just a hard problem to address.

Because in this particular, local context, there's a tacit understanding and agreement, among basically everyone in the city, that a specific group has particular needs - freedom to swim absent the presence of men, per their religion. Other women - definition unknown, I will try check on this - are welcome to be there, sure, but this is sort of incidental; I understand that most of the people swimming at that time are Muslim women. (I also don't want to unfairly drag this group into some sort of competition. Some other women also benefit from this being a protected time. But realistically, the reason it came about was to address this specific need. It's a demographically sizeable group; there's huge demand.)

I guess my question is, what would be a way for the city to meet this need, and describe it, without making reference to the gender binary? "No men" is what's required by this group, for a few hours a week.

There is also the "open and inclusive swim", which is offered with the understanding and tacit agreement of everyone in the city that another group deserves to benefit from a public resource with as few worries as possible. (This time is open to anyone, but everyone understands that it's really for trans* and non-binary identifying folks to swim, with a lot of attention paid to meeting their specific safety needs.) It's not enough, there's no question about that. It does seem like an imperfect, but more or less reasonable beginning, given the context, to me - but, of course, I'm not as invested in or affected by the outcomes, and I can understand frustration with the slowness of change.
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:33 PM on December 16, 2015


I'm concerned that by having gone this far into the pool discussion, I might have inadvertently made "Muslim women" a proxy for players outlined in the earlier discussion. I wouldn't like to do that.

(And as I've said, I personally am with steady-state strawberry in preferring some dude-free zones in some of the clubs and sketchy bars I go to, and that has nothing to do with Muslim women.)

OTOH, I do think the bottom line is that however more general discussions go, it's down to particular communities to find ways to accommodate the sometimes conflicting needs and values of different groups for particular spaces, given a pluralistic society. Probably, not everyone will be happy with every attempt at a solution. Ideally, we'd all find a way to both meet our needs and get along :/
posted by cotton dress sock at 11:23 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


I guess my question is, what would be a way for the city to meet this need, and describe it, without making reference to the gender binary? "No men" is what's required

I think you just asked a question and answered it?

There is also the "open and inclusive swim", which is offered with the understanding and tacit agreement of everyone in the city that another group deserves to benefit from a public resource with as few worries as possible. (This time is open to anyone, but everyone understands that it's really for trans* and non-binary identifying folks to swim, with a lot of attention paid to meeting their specific safety needs.)

Well, except it isn't like the pool is pretty much just intended for trans people (except during women only hours) and everyone else's use of the pool is incidental. It's specifically inclusive of EVERYONE, nobody's use is incidental. It's not like there's a trans only swimming hour or anything, and selling general access as specifically targeted at trans people is a little disingenuous - simply by virtue of demographics and numbers, it will be primarily intended for cis people, just with an effort made to not implicitly exclude trans people. An effort that was not made for the women-only swims. And what about the trans women who'd rather swim without men? Who have a history of abuse or a religious conviction to that end? Well, they're explicitly welcome for general admission. Oh, and there's these hours that are for WOMEN ONLY (with a noticeable lack of any inclusive language, which places this in opposition to the times when trans people are welcome).
posted by Dysk at 11:41 PM on December 16, 2015


I mean, you have to consider that this takes place in a context of trans women being told that they aren't really women ALL THE TIME. In a different context, maybe the signs at your swimming pool would be less a problem. In the context that actually exists, however, they're part of a much bigger problem when they absolutely do not need to be.
posted by Dysk at 12:06 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't think I was as clear as I could have been, earlier; that inclusive swim is called "open and inclusive" in the catalogue but is promoted and referred to colloquially as a "queer swim". It isn't specifically for trans people, no. My understanding is that they're definitely part of the key demographic targeted for this hour. I don't think straight and cis people would be turned away, but they're not really who it's for.

The pool with the unisex-only change rooms just opened, it's the first in the city, and it was conceived and is delivered with the intent of full inclusion, explicitly as an LGBTQ-positive space, that's open to everyone. And it seems that the cis population going there has adjusted to the unisex change rooms, and it doesn't seem that there are complaints about this.

selling general access as specifically targeted at trans people is a little disingenuous - simply by virtue of demographics and numbers, it will be primarily intended for cis people, just with an effort made to not implicitly exclude trans people.

It is very true that the numbers for e.g. my particular local pool (not the one above) mean it's primarily by default a cis space. The gendered bathrooms remain, with the inclusive signage. I think it is an attempt to try to raise awareness and increase comfort - probably also not enough, no argument there.

It's just a beginning, that one hopes will lead to greater inclusivity across the board, and it seems like there's the will and advocacy for more to happen.

As far as whether trans women feel comfortable going to the women-only swims that have come about to meet the needs of the other group (or whether they even want to, or don't because they feel excluded) - I don't know. It's an important question, agreed.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:24 AM on December 17, 2015


I guess my question is, what would be a way for the city to meet this need, and describe it, without making reference to the gender binary? "No men" is what's required

I think you just asked a question and answered it?


That's not my answer, that's the expressed need, and I just don't know another way to answer it. I wasn't being facetious.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:31 AM on December 17, 2015


That's not my answer, that's the expressed need, and I just don't know another way to answer it. I wasn't being facetious.

I know, I was being facetious. That being said, if the issue is "no men" then... why not just call it that?
posted by Dysk at 12:43 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't know! They really should :/
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:45 AM on December 17, 2015


As far as whether trans women feel comfortable going to the women-only swims that have come about to meet the needs of the other group

This oversimplifies things quite dramatically. When you're talking about people, it isn't as easy. People forget that there are muslim trans women, but there are. It cannot be as simple as 'this group vs that group' - both are amorphous and porous, and there is potentially overlap.
posted by Dysk at 12:51 AM on December 17, 2015


Also very true. I saw this piece on that very issue (nothing to do with my city or its pools) when I was reading around. It's not for me to get into it, I think, but yes, it's a problem for some.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:54 AM on December 17, 2015


It cannot be as simple as 'this group vs that group' - both are amorphous and porous, and there is potentially overlap.

It can't be, but I think the de facto assumption (by the city) is that trans women who are not comfortable with the general swims might find their needs addressed by the "open and inclusive"/ "queer swim". I am really curious about the women-only swims now. I might ask around about this, if you're interested (if I can manage, I am not at 100% productivity right now :/).
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:05 AM on December 17, 2015


Don't worry about asking around, I'm interested in the principles and processes at play here more than your specific city in a country I've never even been to.

I think the de facto assumption (by the city) is that trans women who are not comfortable with the general swims might find their needs addressed by the "open and inclusive"/ "queer swim"

Well, this might shield you from some degree of transphobia (or at least mean that you can know you're in the right rather than the transphobe and that management will agree) but it doesn't do anything to address any discomfort a trans woman might have with men. Trans women are women too. If it's reasonable for cis women to want to swim without men around, why are we immediately assuming that no trans women feel that same need? If it's reasonable for there to a space for women that is not open to men, it is reasonable for that space to open to trans women too, precisely because trans women are women, and whatever logic makes it reasonable to have a women-only swim session will apply as much to trans women as it will to cis women.
posted by Dysk at 1:20 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


This is a doozy of a derail at this point, so I am done. Sorry all.
posted by Dysk at 1:24 AM on December 17, 2015


It's not a derail, it's very relevant, and it goes back to some core issues. In this thread so far, we've mostly lumped in non-binary and trans individuals and issues together, just as my city has, and opposed them to "women"s, and it's just way more complicated than that.
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:29 AM on December 17, 2015


we've mostly lumped in non-binary and trans individuals and issues together, just as my city has, and opposed them to "women"s

Well, with the way the term is usually used, non-binary individuals ARE trans. Some trans people are non-binary. Some are not. Some trans people are women. Some are not.

Maybe a Venn diagram would help.
posted by Dysk at 2:21 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


And as I've said, I personally am with steady-state strawberry in preferring some dude-free zones in some of the clubs and sketchy bars I go to

That doesn't necessarily need to be the bathroom, though. I'm finding the swimming-pool discussion interesting, but swimming is not something you biologically need to do at specific times and pools are therefore not really required to be available to every single person all the time. Toilets are (or should be). So segregated pool hours are presumably a hell of a lot more feasible than segregated bathroom hours.
posted by jaguar at 10:10 AM on December 17, 2015


but swimming is not something you biologically need to do at specific times and pools are therefore not really required to be available to every single person all the time. Toilets are (or should be). So segregated pool hours are presumably a hell of a lot more feasible than segregated bathroom hours.

No one is suggesting that toilets should not be available to every single person all the time. No one.

I'm not sure there's even any disagreement that single-room restrooms can and should be unisex, nor even that the option of single-room restrooms should be available whenever possible.

I think everyone also agrees (ironically enough) that bathrooms which are, in theory, available to anyone within a certain class (e.g., all humans, everyone within a certain gender), will, in practice, become available only to those who have enough privilege to feel comfortable being in said restroom without the threat or actuality of violence.

The question is what that privilege entails, what trade-offs are permissible in order to make (some) vulnerable groups more comfortable, and who is placed at risk by those trade-offs.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 11:09 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


« Older Cosplay Rescue Woman is the hero we need *and*...   |   “What kind of police do you call on the police?” Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments