I've been thinking about gender, and I don't really see the point of it. It is an arbitrary social construct that has very little actual meaning. It also is often restrictive in the roles that it allows, the names one can have, the clothes one can wear, and life in general without one seeming "different". If gender is just an arbitrarily created restrictive social construct that limits the options for what everyone can do, then wouldn't we be better off if gender hypothetically didn't exist?
Edit: For the purposes of this discussion, can we please use gender and sex as defined by the World Health Organization?
‘Gender’ describes those characteristics of women and men that are largely socially created, while ‘sex’ encompasses those that are biologically determined.
IIt is an arbitrary social construct that has very little actual meaning.
Is it though?
Well it is a social construct per definition. That leaves the question if it is arbitrary. From an evolutionary standpoint it definitely is. We could easily have evoloved differently. From a social standpoint, if you actually look at the data you see that the differences in the genders aren't really that big and can't explain why it isn't socially exeptable for a man to wear a skirt for instance. Furthermore science has show how easy it is to influence the human mind. You can basically tell a child any nonsense and it will believe it perhaps for the rest of his/her life. So the answer to your question is yes it is.
If it has meaning is a different question, though, and depends what you mean with 'meaning'.
From an evolutionary standpoint it definitely is. We could easily have evoloved differently.
(a) If it's an evolved trait, it's not a social construct.
(b) Saying "we could easily have evolved differently" pretty much misses the entire point of the theory of evolution, which is that it's an optimization process.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
From an evolutionary standpoint it definitely is. We could easily have evoloved differently.
(a) If it's an evolved trait, it's not a social construct.
(b) Saying "we could easily have evolved differently" pretty much misses the entire point of the theory of evolution, which is that it's an optimization process.
A more substantial case than "that's what those words mean"? Sorry can't help you with that. Just use google.
(a) Gender is not a trait. It's a pattern of behaviour.
(b) No it doesn't. It's an optimization process that involves random events like mutations, climate changes and asteroid impacts.
Um... you're going to have to present a slightly more substantial case than that.
Gender is the distinction between masculine and feminine that is applied to various individual traits or behaviors. For instance, boys plays with fire trucks and girls play with dolls. Sex is the biological distinction between male and female and even that isn't as neat and tidy of a definition as people assume. Intersex creates an entire spectrum of biological variations that is often swept away under the constrictions of applying the label of male and female to every individual as they are born.
That leaves the question if it is arbitrary. From an evolutionary standpoint it definitely is. We could easily have evoloved differently.
Could we?
From a social standpoint, if you actually look at the data you see that the differences in the genders aren't really that big and can't explain why it isn't socially exeptable for a man to wear a skirt for instance. Furthermore science has show how easy it is to influence the human mind. You can basically tell a child any nonsense and it will believe it perhaps for the rest of his/her life. So the answer to your question is yes it is.
To misquote Mass Effect: "Ah, yes. 'Data'". You can use words like 'data' and 'science' all you want, but without actual sources, it's all hollow rhetoric.
From an evolutionary standpoint it definitely is. We could easily have evoloved differently.
(a) If it's an evolved trait, it's not a social construct.
(b) Saying "we could easily have evolved differently" pretty much misses the entire point of the theory of evolution, which is that it's an optimization process.
A more substantial case than "that's what those words mean"? Sorry can't help you with that. Just use google.
But the definition does at no point include "it's a purely social construct".
(a) Gender is not a trait. It's a pattern of behaviour.
Right. Because behavioural (epi)genetics are not a thing. We have never, ever, observed any species being predisposed to certain kinds of behaviour. No one ever thought that evolutionary psychology may be something worth researching.
Now please bring on some credible evidence.
(b) No it doesn't. It's an optimization process that involves random events like mutations, climate changes and asteroid impacts.
To give a more correct answer: a bit of both and neither. It's way too complex to try to boil it down to something like that.
Um... you're going to have to present a slightly more substantial case than that.
Gender is the distinction between masculine and feminine that is applied to various individual traits or behaviors. For instance, boys plays with fire trucks and girls play with dolls. Sex is the biological distinction between male and female and even that isn't as neat and tidy of a definition as people assume. Intersex creates an entire spectrum of biological variations that is often swept away under the constrictions of applying the label of male and female to every individual as they are born.
IIt is an arbitrary social construct that has very little actual meaning.
Is it though?
Well it is a social construct per definition. That leaves the question if it is arbitrary. From an evolutionary standpoint it definitely is. We could easily have evoloved differently. From a social standpoint, if you actually look at the data you see that the differences in the genders aren't really that big and can't explain why it isn't socially exeptable for a man to wear a skirt for instance. Furthermore science has show how easy it is to influence the human mind. You can basically tell a child any nonsense and it will believe it perhaps for the rest of his/her life. So the answer to your question is yes it is.
If it has meaning is a different question, though, and depends what you mean with 'meaning'.
You are confusing Socially Acceptable Male Practices and Socially Acceptable American Male practices.
Kilts, for instance are a "Man's Skirt", and several African cultures also feature men wearing skirts.
If I may, the reason most men don't wear skirts is because manly men wear tights (Tight tights)!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
Well, lets get our terms right. Sex: What chromosomes you have combined with what sexual organs you have. Gender: What you're attracted to sexually. And, what "roles" you most associate within society, normally 'masculinity' and 'femininity.'
"Gender" is arguably a social construct, at least the part separate from what you're attracted to (since sexual attraction is likely genetic).
Personally, I agree with the jist of OP's post. I don't think "gender" -as it exists in the 'masculinity' and 'femininity' social norms spectrum- needs to be a thing. However, I think that because I feel we should just concentrate on labeling people based on sex. Gender adds a level of unnecessarily complexity, in my view (especially because of it's alleged fluidity [1]). They shouldn't have questionnaires asking about your "gender;" they should have them asking for "sex." (We used to. I guess too many people answered 'yes please.')
I do -personally- feel that "gender roles" in a modern society are bull*****. We're not hunter/gathers anymore; we don't need to assign roles or likes/dislikes based on chromosomes. If people have a preferences, that's fine, but automatically linking gender to sex isn't fair or necessary.
But, because of the physical differences, I do feel we should make distinctions based on SEX; however, these distinctions should be based on purely physical differences, not perceived preferences.
Edit:Gender and Sex are different. Please make sure you are using the proper term for what you mean.
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity.[2]
In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.[3]
IIt is an arbitrary social construct that has very little actual meaning.
Is it though?
There is nothing genetically that says that women can't be named Josh or Robert and men can't be named Hannah or Emily. There is nothing genetic that says that women have to wear skirts. There is nothing genetic saying that pink is a female color and blue is a male color (it actually used to be the other way around). When you also consider that the ideas of masculinity and femininity change depending on what the dominant culture is (for example, in Communist countries, femininity was disassociated from beauty and the home), it is clear that it is a social construct. Since it changes over time (women being given more rights politically and in the workplace, some names switching from male to female, blue and pink switching from male to female colors, women being allowed to wear pants instead of skirts), it is arbitrary.
But the definition does at no point include "it's a purely social construct".
Right. Because behavioural (epi)genetics are not a thing. We have never, ever, observed any species being predisposed to certain kinds of behaviour. No one ever thought that evolutionary psychology may be something worth researching.
Nice strawman. Who said 'purely'? Gender is a social construct that is influenced by biological factors. Behavioural genetics can tell us which behaviours are innate and which are not.
Now please bring on some credible evidence.
You could have just asked for it without acting like a child about it. Here is a recent TED talk: Link
Or why not the wikipedia article (Link), where you can read the following:
"Using results from a review of 46 meta-analyses, she [Janet Shibley Hyde from the University of Wisconsin-Madison] found that 78% of gender differences were small or close to zero."
To give a more correct answer: a bit of both and neither. It's way too complex to try to boil it down to something like that.
What are you even trying to say here? Evolution isn't a process? It doesn't involve random events? Oh now I see. A bit of both and neither. Makes perfect sense. [/sarcasm]
You should work on your logic skills and try to inform yourself a bit more about the concept of evolution.
Next time you accuse someone of using hollow rhetoric, try to make a post that isn't just that. Where is your definition of 'gender'? Where is your evidence that all human behaviour is innate? What even is your point? I'm skeptical that your reply with be worth reading, but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
But the definition does at no point include "it's a purely social construct".
Right. Because behavioural (epi)genetics are not a thing. We have never, ever, observed any species being predisposed to certain kinds of behaviour. No one ever thought that evolutionary psychology may be something worth researching.
Nice strawman. Who said 'purely'? Gender is a social construct that is influenced by biological factors. Behavioural genetics can tell us which behaviours are innate and which are not.
My bad for assuming this.
You could have just asked for it without acting like a child about it. Here is a recent TED talk: Link
Or why not the wikipedia article (Link), where you can read the following:
"Using results from a review of 46 meta-analyses, she [Janet Shibley Hyde from the University of Wisconsin-Madison] found that 78% of gender differences were small or close to zero."
So, while the sex differences are smaller than people first thought, there are indications of them, and there is no consensus on what causes them?
What are you even trying to say here? Evolution isn't a process? It doesn't involve random events? Oh now I see. A bit of both and neither. Makes perfect sense. [/sarcasm]
You should work on your logic skills and try to inform yourself a bit more about the concept of evolution.
That evolution is neither fully an optimisation process nor completely dependent on random events, at least: from our perspective. There's so much going on in evolution on a ridiculous amount of levels that saying "this is the way things happened, therefore they would always evolve the same way" nor "evolution is random, so it probably wouldn't happen the same way" are untenable claims.
Where is your definition of 'gender'?
Dunno. It's a hard thing to properly define.
Where is your evidence that all human behaviour is innate?
I didn't make that claim.
What even is your point? I'm skeptical that your reply with be worth reading, but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
My point was very simple: Valanarg made a claim, namely that gender is an arbitrary social construct, without backing up that claim. I feel that both parts of that claim, the arbitrary part and the social construct parts, are vital to be agreed upon for further discussion. If it is not arbitrary, then it has a function, and we can discuss whether that function is nefarious, beneficial or neutral. If it's not a social construct, that is: a phenomenon created through social or cultural practice, then it has to overcome so much more than just cultural inertia.
IIt is an arbitrary social construct that has very little actual meaning.
Is it though?
There is nothing genetically that says that women can't be named Josh or Robert and men can't be named Hannah or Emily. There is nothing genetic that says that women have to wear skirts. There is nothing genetic saying that pink is a female color and blue is a male color (it actually used to be the other way around). When you also consider that the ideas of masculinity and femininity change depending on what the dominant culture is (for example, in Communist countries, femininity was disassociated from beauty and the home), it is clear that it is a social construct. Since it changes over time (women being given more rights politically and in the workplace, some names switching from male to female, blue and pink switching from male to female colors, women being allowed to wear pants instead of skirts), it is arbitrary.
So, while the sex differences are smaller than people first thought, there are indications of them, and there is no consensus on what causes them?
Let me be clear. No one is arguing that sex differences don't exist. There is no consensus which behaviours exactly are innate and which are only part of the social construct, but a big part of what people see as male or female attributes are only due to social programming.
That evolution is neither fully an optimisation process nor completely dependent on random events, at least: from our perspective. There's so much going on in evolution on a ridiculous amount of levels that saying "this is the way things happened, therefore they would always evolve the same way" nor "evolution is random, so it probably wouldn't happen the same way" are untenable claims.
Let me be clear. No one is arguing that sex differences don't exist. There is no consensus which behaviours exactly are innate and which are only part of the social construct, but a big part of what people see as male or female attributes are only due to social programming.
But they cannot all be due to social programming, because if that were the case, gender dysphoria would not exist, nor would the case of David Reimer be possible.
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity.[2]
In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.[3]
See, I interpreted some of the things mentioned in the 'gender' definition to include within them 'sexual orientation;' however, I can see how it probably wasn't intended that way. That's kind of the issue I have with the term "gender;" even in the part I quoted you can see it "may include" biological sex, which is the equivocation that often derails these kinds discussions. "Gender" is a very nebulous concept that really doesn't -as far as I can tell- have a firm definition everyone agrees on.
However, I'm pretty confident the OP meant it solely in the "gender role" sense. And -in that sense- I agree with him that it probably would be better if gender roles were not a thing.
See, I interpreted some of the things mentioned in the 'gender' definition to include within them 'sexual orientation;'
But then, how could that be, when the whole point of homosexuality is that homosexual people are people who are gendered male/female and are attracted to males/females respectively?
See, I interpreted some of the things mentioned in the 'gender' definition to include within them 'sexual orientation;'
But then, how could that be, when the whole point of homosexuality is that homosexual people are people who are gendered male/female and are attracted to males/females respectively?
Highroller, I'm agreeing with you on this point. I now -based on what you said and a more careful reading of the wiki page- think it was wrong of me to conflate "gender" with "sexual orientation."
But, I also want to make sure you're not conflating "gender" with "biological sex." Since the two are often meant to mean different things, and I am 100% sure the OP meant them to mean different things. It seems to me -based on your responses- you don't realize this intended difference.
But, I also want to make sure you're not conflating "gender" with "biological sex." Since the two are often meant to mean different things, and I am 100% sure the OP meant them to mean different things. It seems to me -based on your responses- you don't realize this intended difference.
No, I agree that sex and gender are not the same thing.
But, now I realize the issue is even more labyrinthine than I first suspected. We have 'biological sex,' 'gender roles,' 'sexual orientation'... it's really stupidly complex to be trying to conflate it all into some binary societal classification. But, I still think we should have 'separate but equal' bathrooms based on sex.
IDK, maybe I'm old fashion and on the wrong side of history, or something.
But, now I realize the issue is even more labyrinthine than I first suspected. We have 'biological sex,' 'gender roles,' 'sexual orientation'... it's really stupidly complex to be trying to conflate it all into some binary societal classification.
How we classify people. Should questionnaires all start having to do this? Do we need to specify what we mean when we ask someone to fill out a "Male/Female" bubble? Should people have the right to withhold their sex and only tell you their gender? If we go by biological sex, what about the % of the population that's Intersex/hermaphroditic? Should it be required that everyone has their chromosomes tested and be required to reveal the results when confronted with a "Male/Female" bubble?
It's labyrinthine, but society wants it binary.
Well, for one, 'separate but equal' is never equal. Men's rooms tend to be dirtier and women's rooms tend to have longer lines. While it might be socially acceptable, from a purely logical standpoint it seems to me to be about as sexist as separate water fountains was racist.
Anyway,
If you really think about the reasoning behind separate bathrooms, doing it based on sexual orientation would probably make more sense than biological sex, except there is no real way to do it based on sexual orientation such that no one gets looked at by someone that could be sexually attracted to them. But, doing it based on biological sex doesn't really make sense.
Should a straight woman in an all lesbian bathroom feel less uncomfortable than a lesbian in an all bisexual male bathroom?
Fundamentally, what's the difference between the two?
]How we classify people. Should questionnaires all start having to do this? Do we need to specify what we mean when we ask someone to fill out a "Male/Female" bubble?
I don't see the problem with Male/Female. Just give the option to fill in more than one bubble.
Well, for one, 'separate but equal' is never equal.
What are you talking about? What possible resemblance could this have to racial segregation?
While it might be socially acceptable, from a purely logical standpoint it seems to me to be about as sexist as separate water fountains was racist.
Acknowledging that there are differences of sex and giving them separate bathrooms is unfair discrimination? How does that make sense in your own head?
Anyway,
If you really think about the reasoning behind separate bathrooms, doing it based on sexual orientation would probably make more sense than biological sex,
No, that would not make any sense, and I think the fact that you are arguing it would indicates just how divorced your thought process is from the reality of the situation.
I mean, just on the basic level of plumbing it doesn't make any sense, because urinals are not built for women. They just aren't.
But here's the other thing you seem to be missing: lesbians aren't men. They're women. They identify as women. They are sexed like women. A lesbian is not the same thing as person who was born sexed female, but gendered male and prefers women. That is a transgendered person. No, lesbians are women. They are not men.
Likewise, a gay man is a man. He's not a woman. He's a man. He identifies as a man. He is sexed male.
Furthermore, there are bisexual people. Which bathroom do they use? Can they use both?
Edit: For the purposes of this discussion, can we please use gender and sex as defined by the World Health Organization?
http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Is it though?
Well it is a social construct per definition. That leaves the question if it is arbitrary. From an evolutionary standpoint it definitely is. We could easily have evoloved differently. From a social standpoint, if you actually look at the data you see that the differences in the genders aren't really that big and can't explain why it isn't socially exeptable for a man to wear a skirt for instance. Furthermore science has show how easy it is to influence the human mind. You can basically tell a child any nonsense and it will believe it perhaps for the rest of his/her life. So the answer to your question is yes it is.
If it has meaning is a different question, though, and depends what you mean with 'meaning'.
(a) If it's an evolved trait, it's not a social construct.
(b) Saying "we could easily have evolved differently" pretty much misses the entire point of the theory of evolution, which is that it's an optimization process.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A more substantial case than "that's what those words mean"? Sorry can't help you with that. Just use google.
(a) Gender is not a trait. It's a pattern of behaviour.
(b) No it doesn't. It's an optimization process that involves random events like mutations, climate changes and asteroid impacts.
Gender is the distinction between masculine and feminine that is applied to various individual traits or behaviors. For instance, boys plays with fire trucks and girls play with dolls. Sex is the biological distinction between male and female and even that isn't as neat and tidy of a definition as people assume. Intersex creates an entire spectrum of biological variations that is often swept away under the constrictions of applying the label of male and female to every individual as they are born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
Could we?
To misquote Mass Effect: "Ah, yes. 'Data'". You can use words like 'data' and 'science' all you want, but without actual sources, it's all hollow rhetoric.
But the definition does at no point include "it's a purely social construct".
Right. Because behavioural (epi)genetics are not a thing. We have never, ever, observed any species being predisposed to certain kinds of behaviour. No one ever thought that evolutionary psychology may be something worth researching.
Now please bring on some credible evidence.
To give a more correct answer: a bit of both and neither. It's way too complex to try to boil it down to something like that.
Giving a definition of something completely different doesn't prove the case. I'm sorry.
Gender and sex are independent concepts though.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
You are confusing Socially Acceptable Male Practices and Socially Acceptable American Male practices.
Kilts, for instance are a "Man's Skirt", and several African cultures also feature men wearing skirts.
If I may, the reason most men don't wear skirts is because manly men wear tights (Tight tights)!
Sex: What chromosomes you have combined with what sexual organs you have.
Gender: What you're attracted to sexually. And, what "roles" you most associate within society, normally 'masculinity' and 'femininity.'
"Gender" is arguably a social construct, at least the part separate from what you're attracted to (since sexual attraction is likely genetic).
Personally, I agree with the jist of OP's post. I don't think "gender" -as it exists in the 'masculinity' and 'femininity' social norms spectrum- needs to be a thing. However, I think that because I feel we should just concentrate on labeling people based on sex. Gender adds a level of unnecessarily complexity, in my view (especially because of it's alleged fluidity [1]). They shouldn't have questionnaires asking about your "gender;" they should have them asking for "sex." (We used to. I guess too many people answered 'yes please.')
I do -personally- feel that "gender roles" in a modern society are bull*****. We're not hunter/gathers anymore; we don't need to assign roles or likes/dislikes based on chromosomes. If people have a preferences, that's fine, but automatically linking gender to sex isn't fair or necessary.
But, because of the physical differences, I do feel we should make distinctions based on SEX; however, these distinctions should be based on purely physical differences, not perceived preferences.
Edit:
Gender and Sex are different. Please make sure you are using the proper term for what you mean.
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity. [2]
In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia. [3]
There is nothing genetically that says that women can't be named Josh or Robert and men can't be named Hannah or Emily. There is nothing genetic that says that women have to wear skirts. There is nothing genetic saying that pink is a female color and blue is a male color (it actually used to be the other way around). When you also consider that the ideas of masculinity and femininity change depending on what the dominant culture is (for example, in Communist countries, femininity was disassociated from beauty and the home), it is clear that it is a social construct. Since it changes over time (women being given more rights politically and in the workplace, some names switching from male to female, blue and pink switching from male to female colors, women being allowed to wear pants instead of skirts), it is arbitrary.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Nice strawman. Who said 'purely'? Gender is a social construct that is influenced by biological factors. Behavioural genetics can tell us which behaviours are innate and which are not.
You could have just asked for it without acting like a child about it. Here is a recent TED talk:
Link
Or why not the wikipedia article (Link), where you can read the following:
"Using results from a review of 46 meta-analyses, she [Janet Shibley Hyde from the University of Wisconsin-Madison] found that 78% of gender differences were small or close to zero."
What are you even trying to say here? Evolution isn't a process? It doesn't involve random events? Oh now I see. A bit of both and neither. Makes perfect sense. [/sarcasm]
You should work on your logic skills and try to inform yourself a bit more about the concept of evolution.
Next time you accuse someone of using hollow rhetoric, try to make a post that isn't just that. Where is your definition of 'gender'? Where is your evidence that all human behaviour is innate? What even is your point? I'm skeptical that your reply with be worth reading, but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
My bad for assuming this.
So, while the sex differences are smaller than people first thought, there are indications of them, and there is no consensus on what causes them?
That evolution is neither fully an optimisation process nor completely dependent on random events, at least: from our perspective. There's so much going on in evolution on a ridiculous amount of levels that saying "this is the way things happened, therefore they would always evolve the same way" nor "evolution is random, so it probably wouldn't happen the same way" are untenable claims.
Dunno. It's a hard thing to properly define.
I didn't make that claim.
My point was very simple: Valanarg made a claim, namely that gender is an arbitrary social construct, without backing up that claim. I feel that both parts of that claim, the arbitrary part and the social construct parts, are vital to be agreed upon for further discussion. If it is not arbitrary, then it has a function, and we can discuss whether that function is nefarious, beneficial or neutral. If it's not a social construct, that is: a phenomenon created through social or cultural practice, then it has to overcome so much more than just cultural inertia.
Fluid is not the same as arbitrary.
That's "sexuality," which is separate from gender and sex. You might have noticed that there are people who are homosexual.
Let me be clear. No one is arguing that sex differences don't exist. There is no consensus which behaviours exactly are innate and which are only part of the social construct, but a big part of what people see as male or female attributes are only due to social programming.
Well no one is saying 'fully' or 'completely'.
However, I'm pretty confident the OP meant it solely in the "gender role" sense. And -in that sense- I agree with him that it probably would be better if gender roles were not a thing.
Ah. Gotcha. I suppose we'd need Valanarch to clarify that.
But, I also want to make sure you're not conflating "gender" with "biological sex." Since the two are often meant to mean different things, and I am 100% sure the OP meant them to mean different things. It seems to me -based on your responses- you don't realize this intended difference.
But, now I realize the issue is even more labyrinthine than I first suspected. We have 'biological sex,' 'gender roles,' 'sexual orientation'... it's really stupidly complex to be trying to conflate it all into some binary societal classification. But, I still think we should have 'separate but equal' bathrooms based on sex.
IDK, maybe I'm old fashion and on the wrong side of history, or something.
Well, yeah. Why wouldn't you?
It's labyrinthine, but society wants it binary. Well, for one, 'separate but equal' is never equal. Men's rooms tend to be dirtier and women's rooms tend to have longer lines. While it might be socially acceptable, from a purely logical standpoint it seems to me to be about as sexist as separate water fountains was racist.
Anyway,
If you really think about the reasoning behind separate bathrooms, doing it based on sexual orientation would probably make more sense than biological sex, except there is no real way to do it based on sexual orientation such that no one gets looked at by someone that could be sexually attracted to them. But, doing it based on biological sex doesn't really make sense.
Should a straight woman in an all lesbian bathroom feel less uncomfortable than a lesbian in an all bisexual male bathroom?
Fundamentally, what's the difference between the two?
What are you talking about? What possible resemblance could this have to racial segregation?
Acknowledging that there are differences of sex and giving them separate bathrooms is unfair discrimination? How does that make sense in your own head?
No, that would not make any sense, and I think the fact that you are arguing it would indicates just how divorced your thought process is from the reality of the situation.
I mean, just on the basic level of plumbing it doesn't make any sense, because urinals are not built for women. They just aren't.
But here's the other thing you seem to be missing: lesbians aren't men. They're women. They identify as women. They are sexed like women. A lesbian is not the same thing as person who was born sexed female, but gendered male and prefers women. That is a transgendered person. No, lesbians are women. They are not men.
Likewise, a gay man is a man. He's not a woman. He's a man. He identifies as a man. He is sexed male.
Furthermore, there are bisexual people. Which bathroom do they use? Can they use both?