Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
The Implications of Degendering Public Restrooms:
The Bathroom Bill Debate
Alistaire Webbe
English Composition II
Professor Keough
December 16, 2018
Webbe 2
Introduction
Eliminating waste is one of the most vulnerable times for many animals. It is why dogs
stare at us as they go, and why humans prefer private stalls or rooms. It is understandable that
when a human perceives a threat in their vulnerable, supposedly-private space, they will want to
prevent that threat from occurring. In the case of controversial bathroom bills surrounding
transgender people, many humans allow their primitive brains to take over. Despite this panic, it
is essential for all humans to be able to relieve themselves in the safest place possible, not just
the humans whom society deems to be the norm. People of any gender have the right to use
public restrooms in a manner that is secure and undisruptive. In their original, most basic form,
spaces for waste elimination are merely safe places for humans to do their business and leave.
The corruption of these spaces is the true catalyst of the “bathroom debate.” Although there is
widespread concern about men taking advantage of being able to enter a space designated for
women, gender should be completely removed from waste elimination by replacing the two
standard bathroom signs with “toilets” and “urinals and toilets” to reflect the actual facilities
inside rather than whom may be allowed to make use of them. This solution is a compromise that
satisfies each debating side’s major concerns, along with the concept that the advantages of
restroom renovation outweigh the expenses and that the destruction of gender-coded spaces
provides immense overall psychological benefits.
History of the Debate
In 2012, over 150 schools and universities created a movement by installing gender-
neutral bathrooms, riding the wave that began as early as 2009 until it became a tsunami.1 Those
who opposed this movement only served to generate more discussion, publicity, and support for
a debate that eventually took the spotlight as the epitome of transgender rights. Since then, many
Webbe 3
Republican-dominated states have passed “bathroom surveillance bills” requiring people to use
the restroom correlating to their assigned gender at birth (that is to say, for example, when a baby
is born and a doctor sees that it has a vagina, the doctor will declare that it is a girl, and therefore
it must only use women’s restrooms).2 The main purpose of these laws is said to be to protect
young girls from men who may claim to be a transgender woman (a person who was assigned
male at birth and identifies as a woman) in order to assault them. However, many people believe
that these laws stem only from transphobia, or the hatred of transgender people, and advocate
that transgender people are statistically at a higher risk of assault in public restrooms than
cisgender people (those whose gender identity corresponds with the gender assigned to them at
birth). Subsequently, several Democratic states have passed laws that protect transgender people
from being discriminated against or denied access for their gender identity, mostly famously
Massachusetts and California.3 California is often seen to be a national leader in transgender
rights, going so far as to add a “nonbinary” gender option on state identification applications at
their Department of Motor Vehicles, meaning that people who identify as neither a man nor a
woman do not have to chose one of those options. The bathroom debate is often seen as larger
than simply bathrooms: it represents the entire national ideology of gender and of transgender
rights. Both sides of the debate clearly have an interest in safety for all humans, including other
minorities, but interpret their own definition in different ways. While it is difficult to argue
against the desire to protect children from sexual predators, the route of bathroom surveillance
does not accomplish that; it merely impinges on the health, safety, comfort, and overall
wellbeing of transgender people. Regardless, both sides of the argument can agree that every
person has the right to a feeling of safety when using a public restroom. Achieving a balance of
Webbe 4
the dissimilar approaches each side uses in order to accomplish this single prevailing interest is
the true goal of the bathroom debate and must be the aim of each proposed solution to this issue.
Relabeling bathroom signs is the ultimate compromise
To begin, the standard bathroom options should be relabeled to dismantle gender
segregation because this proposed solution is a practical, realistic balance between the core
concerns of each debating side. First and foremost, each side is concerned for the safety of
themselves and their loved ones. For those opposed, their concern is for the women and children
who may become vulnerable to sexual predators in bathrooms and locker rooms. For those in
favor, their concern is for the transgender people who would be subjected to harassment and
assault. A survey created to gouge the general opinion of this proposal reported that 83.8% of
respondents would prefer this solution to the current norm.4 In other words, an absolute majority
