[Bostonian]

Far more women are sexually assaulted by men than by women, and I don't see why the law cannot recognize that. That's why we have separate bathrooms and locker rooms for the sexes and why college roommates in dorms are usually of the same sex.

[curryst]

Recognizing that also welcomes comparisons along other boundaries. Some racial minorities are over-represented in violent crime statistics. Without delving into biases potentially present in both your statistic and those, what would be the fundamental difference between allowing riders to filter by gender and allowing them to filter by race? Your argument seems like a justification for both.

I also don't know that sexual assault is the reason for segregated bathrooms and locker rooms. I was always under the impression that it was just a puritanical artifact from an older time. Unified bathrooms are becoming more popular; I am curious if that has had any impact on sexual assault rates.

[lawnchair_larry]

It doesn’t really require comparisons across any other boundaries, but it might be at odds with certain feminist philosophies. However, making it optional seems like an easy way to please everyone.

The fundamental difference between filtering by race and filtering by gender is that one is by race and one is by gender. They’re not the same thing, and we don’t need to pretend that they are.

Separate bathrooms is most certainly not related to the Puritans, as we can observe equal or more bathroom separation across almost all religions and in all countries.

I don’t even think unified bathrooms are really becoming more popular outside the relatively small bubble that has been influenced by trans-activism. Even then, most of them are for a single occupant, which doesn’t really count, but satisfies everyone.

[chmod775]

> They’re not the same thing, and we don’t need to pretend that they are.

They're the same in that you don't get a choice in either case before your birth.

You would be treating people differently based on something they have no influence over, instead of actually recognizing them as a individual who can make their own choices.

If you decide that discriminating based on race or sex (or anything else you're born with) is okay, you're starting down a slippery slope with a running start and no more obvious stops in sight. Best not to start with this at all.

[altShiftDev]

> That's why we have separate bathrooms and locker room

I've never heard anyone claim this before, do you have any source or evidence to support this? Wouldn't that imply "family washrooms" or co-ed are hot-spots for rape? That seems like hyperbole.

The simplest reason would be for privacy between the sexes and keeping with a tradition of segregating washrooms that dates back to the Victorian Era. Before which, public bathrooms were male only, making things very difficult for women to be about in public. Thus the creation of female public washrooms was to allow them the same rights as men, not to prevent men from assaulting them in co-ed facilities.

Source: https://www.livescience.com/54692-why-bathrooms-are-gender-s...

[1MoreThing]

Neither of those things are mandated by laws, afaik.

[Bostonian]

No, but single-sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and dorm rooms are not forbidden by law, and I think the law should not forbid people, especially women, from requesting a female driver.

[coffee12345]

we also use to have segregation by race, justified similarly to the way you are justifying sex segregation.