Unisex Restrooms (Eek!)

Actually, really, is it so "eek"?  Restrooms are the one place where we accept gender segregation, and maybe we should consider whether that really makes sense any more.

"But, Dave," you say, "we can't have folks of different genders using the same restroom! That's sheer madness!"  But, really, it's not. It's simply arbitrary taboo, double-reinforced by (a) emotional hinkiness over toilet stuff and (b) emotional hinkiness over sex.

(And even though I sound blase about it, I don't dismiss myself from that same hinkiness. I just don't accept it as the Natural Order of Things.)

So let's think this through.  The possible arrangement of restrooms at most locations are as follows:

* 1. A single one-person restroom.* These are always unisex, and nobody seems to pitch a fit.

Hell, if you think about it, that's how it is at home. And even if you say, "Well, that's among families," not only is that a silly distinction, but most people don't create separate men's and women's restrooms for house guests.

* 2. Two one-person restrooms.* Suddenly, these become gender-specific for no logical reason (except the men or women might get cooties from the opposite gender using their space, which sometimes happens anyway when there's a line and urgency).  Why not simply label both as unisex and let folks queue up for whichever comes free next?

(Note that when there is a "family" restroom, which includes baby changing facilities or toilets for folks who need help from an assistant or family member, these are always labeled as unisex, which seems to render the whole "cooties" thing irrelevant.)

* 3. Two multi-person restrooms.*  Here's where it gets a bit dicier. In theory, there seems little reason why this would be some horrible arrangement if made unisex.

On the assumption that one must Never, Ever, See Private Body Parts, there might be a desire to better segregate the urinal section (on the further assumption those are more water-efficient, and therefore should be retained), though to be fair I can't say that I've ever seen a guy's penis just walking by the urinals. And as far as stalls go, honestly, is there something horribly, objectively wrong about the person voiding their bowels in the adjoining stall being of the opposite gender?

Still, being habituated to single-gender restrooms, it would probably still feel strange, at least for a while. I suspect folks would get used to it a lot faster than they think.

The concerns that come up in this area tend, I think, to be overblown pearl-clutching. I don't see how rape, for example, is somehow more likely in a mixed-gender restroom of this sort (presumably a guy who would commit a rape in a bathroom would not cavil about entering or lurking in the ladies room). The idea that there might be some sort of untoward ogling ignores the growing reality of gays and lesbians (and transgender individuals) in our society.

This third scenario is, for the moment, perhaps a social bridge too far. There are no rational reasons for it, but some heavy social customs involved. Heck for that matter, even if it potentially benefited women more (by decreasing the wait time), they might have the greatest objections (given the social aspects of flocks of women heading to the refuge of the ladies room).

But certainly for the second scenario, there's no reason to maintain single-sex "one-holers" when to do so tends to inconvenience one gender over another (i.e., when it promotes inefficiency and increases wait times). It's certainly not the biggest social issue we face, but it's one that I suspect will keep cropping up more and more as time goes on.