race segregated bathrooms are unconstitutional. so why are sex segregated bathrooms constitutional?

In reference to ethnicity segregated means set apart or separated from others of the same kind or group, restricted to members of one group or one race by a policy of segregation.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A+segregated

so the womens dont rape us. d'ur

so the womens dont rape us. d'ur

I think 100% of all straight men would love for this to happen. :bigthumb:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A+segregated

okay, and how is this an answer to my question?

explain how drawing a line by sex is more appropriate then drawing a line by race.

"group" or "kind" is only defined by how you draw the line of division.

united states v. virginia (The VMI case): a military affiliated university which had a policy since 1830 of only admitting male students was forced to begin admitting female students when the supreme court ruled that the school's admission policy was unconstitutional using intermediate scrutiniy.

the government's argument was that the educational program used 'adversarial' teaching techniques specficially geared towards men. they had scientific studies which demonstrated men learned better in adversarial environments while women learned better in cooperative environments.

so the womens dont rape us. d'ur

the argument that you are indirectly referring to falls flat on its face.

the argument is that men are predisposed to raping women, and it would make it easy for men to rape women. we need to sex segregate bathrooms to protect women.

#1 public bathrooms do not have security measures that prevent one sex from entering the other sex's bathroom. they are self governed. in a secluded area, it would be no problem for a man to enter a woman's bathroom and lie in wait for a victim. in bathrooms with alot of people, it is unlikely a rape could be carried out successfully.

#2 you could easily say minorities such as blacks and spanish people are statistically more prone to committing crimes. therefore, we need to protect whites from the risk of such crimes by segregating rest rooms along racial lines. obviously this line of reasoning is no longer valid.

because women want to be "equal" but still treated like women. does that makes sense?

united states v. virginia (The VMI case): a military affiliated university which had a policy since 1830 of only admitting male students was forced to begin admitting female students when the supreme court ruled that the school's admission policy was unconstitutional using intermediate scrutiniy.



VMI is not a private institution, therefore it is unconstitutional to disallow females from entering the school. The Citadel and Shannon Faulkner went through this back in the mid 90's.

It becomes a issue of morality and common sense. We separate bathrooms for Women's safety, and believe me, most women would agree.

If you interpret the constitution verbatim, then yes it would be unconsitutional. But, the U.S. Supreme Court would laugh in your face if you brought them that argument that Women & Men's bathrooms should not be segregated.

There would be some serious sexual harassment suits if women and men weren't separated.

There would be some serious sexual harassment suits if women and men weren't separated.

and the women would be the only ones filing them. Heaven forbid a man file a sexual harassment suit.

There would be some serious sexual harassment suits if women and men weren't separated.


and the women would be the only ones filing them.

Sounds like women's safety to me. I have a problem with a unregistered male sex offender being in the same restroom with my fiance, my nieces, or my mother.

The real reason they're typically separate is modesty. In general, women don't want men to hear them shitting or see them preening, and vice versa.

The real reason they're typically separate is modesty. In general, women don't want men to hear them shitting or see them preening, and vice versa.

VMI is not a private institution, therefore it is unconstitutional to disallow females from entering the school.

okay... that's very obvious. that's also not the point. the point is that segregation based on sex is a suspect classification in certain situations.

women's safety is not why we segregate bathrooms. the common sense reason for segregating bathrooms was already stated by manntis.

the question that is posed is why is it okay to segregate restrooms by sex but not by race?

if you pose the women's safety answer, then it should be okay to segregate bathrooms by race as long as you can show one race has a much higher disposition towards crimes.

It becomes a issue of morality and common sense.

This is exactly why we shouldn't/don't interpret things verbatim here in America, even our constitution.

women's safety is not why we segregate bathrooms. the common sense reason for segregating bathrooms was already stated by manntis.



Go ask the first woman you see and ask her why does she think that male/female bathrooms are separated.

I seriously doubt it's because she doesn't want to hear a man piss/shit.

The "common sense" reason is that is it not socially normal for women and men to share bathrooms. Women have periods, men don't, women don't use urinals, men do....the list goes on.

We have to ask ourselves the question, what makes sense and is morally correct. Women and men sharing bathrooms is about as smart as wiping your ass with your hand.

The Supreme Court recognizes this and therefore there will never be an amendment to the constitution to de-segregate bathrooms.

In conclusion, there really isn't a real reason why that will satisfy people who argue this issue. The few that do, realize sooner or later how bad of an idea it would be.

It's because men and women are inherently different creatures. A black man and a white man are still both men, no matter what they look like. The bottom line is that they both have a dick and balls, and everything else that goes along with being a man. Females are not men, they are a different sex, thus a different creature. Race separation is different because you are comparing granny smith apples to macintosh apples. Sex separation is comparing apples to oranges.

Back in the day when bathrooms were segregated, white men didn't think as much about penis size........

if you pose the women's safety answer, then it should be okay to segregate bathrooms by race as long as you can show one race has a much higher disposition towards crimes.

What if an unusual amount of tall males were raping women. Then are you gonna segregate the bathrooms by height too?

Back in the day when bathrooms were segregated, white men didn't think as much about penis size........

I was waiting on you to get in this thread :)

Anyway, 2ndGen hit the nail on the head, which is exactly where I was going with my period/urinal comment above.

Go ask the first woman you see and ask her why does she think that male/female bathrooms are separated.

I seriously doubt it's because she doesn't want to hear a man piss/shit.

You can doubt all you want, but segregation based on sexual norms, not the 'potential for rape', are common in Christian-based countries. It used to be that schools had separate entrances for boys and girls - not because they were afraid of Timmy raping Mary Beth in the vestibule, but because gender proximity was believed to increase the temptation amongst both genders to willfully fornicate.

I've been in more than one nightclub in Vancouver with mixed washrooms - women walk right past men at the urinals in order to reach the stalls. Wouldn't rape worries be higher in bars, where alcohol and poor judgement flow like water?

You can doubt all you want, but segregation based on sexual norms, not the 'potential for rape', are common in Christian-based countries. It used to be that schools had separate entrances for boys and girls - not because they were afraid of Timmy raping Mary Beth in the vestibule, but because gender proximity was believed to increase the temptation amongst both genders to willfully fornicate.

I've been in more than one nightclub in Vancouver with mixed washrooms - women walk right past men at the urinals in order to reach the stalls. Wouldn't rape worries be higher in bars, where alcohol and poor judgement flow like water?

We agree to disagree, although I do agree wiht your example about Timmy and Mary Beth, tis true.

To add to that, the forefathers of this country were christians, which i'm sure they would agree that de-segregating bathrooms is a bad idea.

We agree to disagree, although I do agree wiht your example about Timmy and Mary Beth, tis true.

To add to that, the forefathers of this country were christians, which i'm sure they would agree that de-segregating bathrooms is a bad idea.
i just love reading these arguments.




:banghead:

The real reason they're typically separate is modesty. In general, women don't want men to hear them shitting or see them preening, and vice versa.

:werd:

To add to that, the forefathers of this country were christians, which i'm sure they would agree that de-segregating bathrooms is a bad idea.

actually a bunch of the founders of this country were deists, but whatever. a christian country is a country with a king who rules by divine right and christianity is the religion of the state. not a democracy with freedom of religion.

and you are missing the point of the thread. nobody is arguing we should desegregate bathrooms. i was trying to get you to think of a reason why some forms of segregation are allowed, or even desirable, while others aren't.

anyway, i'll throw in my professor's point of view now. this is actually a debate he held in constitutional law today. his point of view is that there is no constitutional basis for it. the courts view race segregation under strict scrutiny and sex segregation under intermediate scrutiny because of social norms.

and here's his 'legal' common sense answer. when you think of racially segregated bathrooms, there is a huge element of racial superiority that goes along with it.

when you think of sex segregated bathrooms, there is no connotation of male superiority over women that goes along with it. it's just the way things are, and the way they should be.

that's also the difference between sex segregation in bathrooms and sex segregation in universities. for a military university to exclude women from their educational programs under that kind of justification (mentioned earlier) carries a heavy element of 'outmoded stereotypes and ancient views of sex roles' that the supreme court loves to strike down. there's no such element to sex segregated bathrooms.

the argument to protect women is usually an argument alot of men think of to justify it. of course they're assuming that women actually need such protection. just another example of 'outmoded stereotypes.'

To add to that, the forefathers of this country were christians...Really? Name the founding father who said...

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

Aznpoopy is right. Read the Declaration of Independence and in the first paragraph you'll find "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".

Plus can you imagine hitting on a hot ass girl at the bar all night, and then walking into the bathroom to piss only to find her shitting her brains out? I don't want to see that, ever.

and you are missing the point of the thread. nobody is arguing we should desegregate bathrooms. i was trying to get you to think of a reason why some forms of segregation are allowed, or even desirable, while others aren't.


I see your point, but once we understand why we shouldn't de-segregate bathrooms, then we can come to a conclusion why it's not unconstitutional. Again, it becomes an issue of morality.

My point is that although we do interpret the constitution verbatim for certain issues, there comes a time when certain issues have a grey area, such as abortion and even bathroom segregation.

I believe Abortion is murder, and I think it should be unconstitutional, but I doubt all of Washington would agree...

Really? Name the founding father who said...



I don't know much about Thomas Jefferson, but from what I remember from American Studies a few years back, he was a bit of a hypocrit himself. He was not a devout christian, but he was indeed of the christian faith and had christian beliefs, which may or may not have had an influence on the political foundation of this country.

Plus can you imagine hitting on a hot ass girl at the bar all night, and then walking into the bathroom to piss only to find her shitting her brains out? I don't want to see that, ever.

harold and kumar go to white castle!!!:worship:

harold and kumar go to white castle!!!:worship:
i have yet to actually see that movie.

you're missing out :)