What's wrong with the gender neutral bathroom?

 

My frustrations with gendered restrooms started long before my transition. To be more precise, they started with parenthood. As a male presenting parent, who was determined to be involved with my children, I quickly became aware of an of an odd form of sexism: changing tables. For some odd reason, most men’s rooms are not equipped with facilities for changing babies’ diapers.  Apparently, women are the only ones that need those. This left me as an engaged “father” with a few limited choices. Either make my wife change all the diapers when we were in public or kneel down on dirty bathroom floors and hope my child did not wiggle off the changing pad I had brought. This led to a parenting experience that me and wife laugh about …now in retrospect. My 10-month-old child had a massive blow out in a fast-food restaurant. We are talking kid goo everywhere all over my kid and all over the wooden high chair and down to the tile floors. So, we had to divide and concur. My wife cleaned the public space and I took the wiggly toddler to change. In the public men’s room which of course did not have a changing table. So, there I am in a bathroom stall trying to change my child’s clothing and diaper while they manage to pull themselves up on the toilet and use it as a standing support. This was great for my toddler who was obsessed with toilets at the time. I had already equipped all of our toilets at home with child locks. #1 felt like this was a prime opportunity to go “fishing” in the toilet with their hands. Meanwhile I am trying to take soiled clothes off, wipe the child and put clean clothes on. All of this could have been avoided with a proper changing table.

Things did not get better as my children aged. I frequently give my wife a break by taking my children out on public adventures as the only parent. This became complicated as all the rest of my children are girls. To make things worse, my youngest was dead set on being a baby as long as she could and refused to potty train until the age of 5 when we told her she would not be able to go to kindergarten if she didn’t use a toilet. Prior to that, there was one major motivator for her to use the toilet-going to public restrooms with her sisters. In that space she very much wanted to be like her sisters. As a result of these circumstances, I frequently sent my 7-year-old into ladies’ rooms to assist her 5-year-old and 3-year-old sister in using the facilities. This equated to crossing my fingers and hoping everything came out ok. It also burdened my 7-year-old with an unfair and unrealistic level of responsibility. There have been times that strangers have yelled at my children for being in the wrong bathroom stall or using too much soap or paper towels. At these moments all I could do is console my children when they came out and be angry that someone felt that yelling and chiding was a better then helping. Bathroom segregation also affects parents and caretakers of disabled people, children with obsessive compulsive disorder and any other individual who may need help in the restroom. The clarion call of the “fair minded” individual is that all others should simply use the unisex bathrooms. I posit that this seemingly obvious compromise comes from a place of privilege and anyone who feels it is feasible needs to spend at least two weeks using unisex restrooms. Many public spaces do not have unisex bathrooms and often when they do have these, they are much further away then the gendered bathrooms. Placing different expectations on a subset of the population (which includes more people than just the trans ones) creates a kind of “second class citizen.” It establishes a bathroom hierarchy. Those whose needs are catered to and met with convince and those who must “go the extra mile” just to meet basic biological needs.

There are many very feasible ways around these struggles faced by every parent of young children and many others. My favorite solution is the family restroom in the South Town mall in Sandy Utah. This gender-neutral restroom is equipped with family stalls that include grown up size toilets and sinks and child sized toilets and sinks in the same stall. There is a large changing counter big enough for three children to be changed at once. Other amenities include a nursing lounge with glider rocking chairs, a microwave for heating water for formula and a small children’s lounge with child sized furniture and a TV that plays the Disney Channel. The easiest solution though is simply to ungender bathrooms. The Sprague Library in Sugar house renovated their bathroom to exist of a number of “water closets” around a central hub of sinks and mirrors. Queer spaces have developed a number of different ways of dealing with this. The Sun Trap has a number of strategically located water closets (that is a small closet with a toilet and sink in it) throughout the bar. Club Verse has a single ungendered bathroom with stalls that go all the way to the ceiling and all the way to the roof. Milk+ simply has the typical public restrooms, one with all stalls and one with stalls and urinals, and has signage that says “use whatever restroom feels right for you”

The solutions are so easy yet no one wants to change the way things are. I’d like to suggest that there is a more sinister intent here – whether conscious or unconscious. The historical fact is that bathroom segregation has long been used to establish and maintain a cast hierarchy in America and other places. Use of the “facilities” is not only critical for public health but critical for mobility. How far do you suppose you could go from home and how long would you be able to stay out if you were not able to utilize public restrooms? Historically these limitations have been called the “Urinary Leash.” The modern public restroom came to be during the Victorian era. At that time, it was believed that women’s place was in the home and public affairs should be left for men. As a result, no public facilities were provided for women. This became such an issue that suffragists started to fight for their own public restrooms. Gender segregation of restrooms still impacts women in negative ways. For example, all of us are socialized to accept long lines at women’s restrooms without questioning it. The common explanation is that women take longer to do the job. When one stops to think about the issue beyond the surface one realizes that urinals take up far less space and as a result women’s restrooms allotted the same space as men’s restrooms have less toilets. This is one of many ways that the current segregation of the genders impacts women negatively. John Maynard a city planning professional provides a rather erudite discussion of these issues here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/womens-public-toilet-long-shadow-patriarchy-john-maynard/.Perhaps the most notorious form bathroom segregation to take place in America is the racial segregation of the first half of the last century. Certainly, that segregation was meant to both literally and figuratively “put someone in their place.”

Just this week, the Utah legislature passed a law that criminalizes trans people utilizing the bathroom consistent with their true gender. Forcing them to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender assigned at birth. There were versions of the bill that did not explicitly target trans people. Versions ware the language focused on behaviors rather then groups of people. The state house absolutely refused to pass a bill that did not have language specifically targeting the trans community. Much of the discussion here has been around women being assaulted in bathrooms; the assumption being that allowing trans people in bathrooms some how increases the chances of women being assaulted. There is no research that suggests this and no logical argument that connects trans people and assault. The trust is that men have enough privilege and power that they simply walk into women’s restrooms and assault the people in them. It’s been that way as long as there were public restrooms for women. So, the issue in that case predates public awareness of trans people in their restrooms. The real issue is assaultive men not trans women. If a man did want to go the extra mile and dress up for the job a janitor’s outfit would be just as effective as dressing like a woman. Not to mention most cis-het men avoid anything womanly like the plague and wouldn’t want to dress as a woman for any reason.

One of the tenants of acceptance and commitment therapy is that we typically take action and then our actions by creating an explaining story after the fact. This explanation story may or may not have any truth to it. Propionates of the Utah bathroom bill are far more concerned about cis women’s privilege and comfort then they are the safety of trans women. The reality of this situation that doesn’t actually come up in conversation is that there is a contingent of women who view trans women as men and do not want “men” in their restrooms. In order to protect their comfort, they pursue these laws that criminalize trans bathroom use. This is best seen in the comments of Republican senator Dan McKay of Riverton as quoted by KSL:

"I think the most important part for all of this is trying to look at the greater population, everybody here, and trying to come up with a policy that matches everyone's interest," McCay told KSL.com, when asked why the bill restricts access to restrooms for transgender people rather than simply criminalizing inappropriate behavior in restrooms. "I have spoken with many women who do not want to be confronted with men who look like men, or men who look like women but are men, in their bathroom." https://www.ksl.com/article/50857716/utah-legislature-gives-final-approval-to-transgender-bathroom-bill-after-last-minute-tweaks

Notice his profoundly sensitive and caring use of the term “men who look like women but are men.” Senator McKay tipped his hand clearly; he does not believe that trans women are women and deserve rights. Trans women for Senator McKay are simply men playing dress up as women. No wonder he takes the stance. Senator McKay also believes that it is most important to look at the greater population. On its face this appears to be a reasonable assumption-shouldn’t public facilities cater to the most people? Accepting his assumption, we don’t actually know that most cis women take issue with trans women in their restrooms. I would argue that the basic assumption of “catering to the most” is flawed and does not reflect modern American law. Catering to the most would have meant that racial segregation remain a fact. Catering to the most would have meant that there would be no Americans with Disabilities Act and no public accommodation for those with disabilities. Precedent shows that at times the American public – the able bodied racially privileged white American public –endures discomfort to accommodate a minority so that they too can exist in public spaces.  When bathrooms were integrated lawmakers decided that the humanity of people of color was more important than the feelings or racist people. Why shouldn’t the humanity of trans people be more important than the comfort of people who refuse to acknowledge their existence as a historical and scientific reality?  

Finally, Senator McKay somehow seems to believe that this law takes into account the interest of the trans community. Remember that part ware he said “matches everyone’s interest.” It’s interesting that the state legislature is somehow experts on the trans communities’ interests seeing as there were no trans people involved in writing, revising, and passing of this bill. The only input the trans community got was their public comments.  This bill clearly does not take into account the interest of my transfeminine friend who had milk shakes thrown at her in a men’s room or my other friend who ignored her urinary urge on an entire road trip from Missouri to Salt Lake just to avoid the using public restrooms. It certainly does not take into account the large population of transmasculine individuals who have been absent in all of this debate. My bearded deep voiced bros would certainly scare many women in the restroom even though they have a vagina. Neither does it consider that the most common side effect of the most frequently used testosterone blocker (Spironolactone) is frequent urination with intense urgency. This bill is completely ignorant of what trans people look and act like and what the needs of our bodies are. It was written by people who have never met a trans person responding to an imaginary boogie man in their head. It is not a compromise and it does not actually consider the needs of the trans community. Perhaps most paramount is the need to be treated as a human being worthy of respect and consideration. Instead, this bill places a premium of the comfort of a subset of women (who are largely uneducated about trans people) over the safety and sanity of the trans community.

Whether or not this bill becomes law or stays in effect once it is law, the effects will be the same: terror. This is an act of emotional terrorism. Trans people all over the nation and certainly in Utah are terrified of using the public restroom. The choice we are given is to pick one where we are physically unsafe or one where we will likely make people uncomfortable. If you know a trans person you might ask them their feelings on bathrooms. It may be enlightening just how dehumanizing they find it that the public seems to want to prevent them from meeting their basic human needs. The true purpose of this law is to send a clear message and we the trans community have heard it loud and clear. 

“YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.”