Hospital staff (i.e. doctors) routinely pressure parents of foetuses with non-lethal (i.e. conducive to life) genetic conditions into aborting those foetuses, thereby removing babies with what they consider undesirable traits from the gene pool.
I use modified nonsense rhyme composed by myself, combined with numerals, capitalisations, and symbols.
Sometimes they're based on a phrase in English to make it easier to memorise.
Using this method it's fairly easy to remember very long passwords with words mostly not in the dictionary (and that are unique to whomever compose them).
The pancreas synthesises insulin (amongst other hormones and enzymes). The pump has to be refilled from an external source and cannot synthesise anything.
"transsexualism is now known to have a physical cause".
I provided the DSM 5 definition. Please stop trying to subvert it.
"Also, you;re linking to outdated info."
I provided information from the DSM 5. This is not preliminary information and it is most certainly not outdated. The information you found is a proposal for the DSM 5. You'll note that your link refers to it as the now deprecated Gender Identity Disorder (that's how old it is).
Along those lines, how is newer information (the DSM 5 was published in 2013) outdated compared to the information you've provided (the last edit on that website was 2012, but I believe those proposals were floated around 2010)?
Go search for a "we propose" line, you won't find it.
I have university access to the DSM. I quoted the information directly as a courtesy.
Doctors, psychologists, and psychiaratrists use the DSM. They also use the SOC. Additionally they will use published peer reviewed journals. You switching to a new source of information is misdirection to save face. Why? Read on.
Lets go back a bit shall we... "You seem to believe that transsexualism is a mental disorder. The American Psychiatric Association says otherwise"
That's you quoting the APA as the basis for your argument. Your whole argument was based on the APA. Now you're saying "Physicians, even in the US, follow WPATH recommendations, not the APA, which was a late-comer to the process" Lol. Please.
By the way I have the SOC 7 right here. It's published in 2011, 2 years before the much newer DSM 5.
"WPATH recognizes that there is a difference between gender-non-conforming individuals and those with gender dysphoria.
And? Red-herring, you're redirecting away from your original point so you don't have to address it.
"As I said, try to keep up.:-)"
You're getting pretty boring. I doubt I'll engage in further conversation.
Keep up with what? All I've done is listed someone else's research. I haven't said it's wrong. I haven't said it's right. You've made poor assumptions. Keep your words in mind while reading on.
The American Psychiatric Association say that GID was specifically renamed to Gender Dysphoria to remove stigma.
You wrote "Gender dysphoria, on the other hand, allows for (and pretty much mandates) that transsexualism has a physical origin, and that the RESULT is gender dysphoria "
The DSM 5 defines transsexualism quite simply: "Transsexual denotes an individual who seeks, or has undergone, a social transition from male to female or female to male, which in many, but not all, cases also involves a somatic transition by cross-sex hormone treatment and genital surgery (sex reassignment surgery)."
This does not match your definition. Transsexualism quite specifically does not need "a somatic transition by cross-sex hormone treatment and genital surgery (sex reassignment surgery)."
You wrote "gender dysphoria - a distress about the mismatch of perceived and physical genders".
I believe you mean perceived gender and physical sex.
The DSM 5 has 6 diagnostic criteria for adults for gender dysphoria of which the patient must have at least 2 criteria present:
"1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender.
4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)."
You are half way there. The last three criteria do not require any rejection or desire of sexual characteristics.
In children you're quite off the mark, with 8 criteria, of which the child must have 6. Of the 8 criteria, there are 6 which don't refer to sexual characteristics, and 2 that do refer to sexual characteristics.
You wrote "same as you would have if you woke up tomorrow and some naughty bits were missing".
By free speech one can claim another is anything they like, as long as it doesn't cross the hate-speech line or incite violence against anyone. This is a right we all have.
As the saying goes, "my free speech doesn't end when you're offended".
Not all of us are "still trying to figure out gender fluidity".
You promote restrictions on freedom of speech "in the name of liberty". Lol. Nice one.
Don't conflate the demand for "papers, please", which has a particular historical meaning, with what you suggested - that "it should be illegal to ask" someone's sex or gender.
Citizens have a right to free speech, of which asking questions (in the USA at least) are a protected form of free speech. You also have a right to silence in America. So if you'd like to retain you "personal privacy" you don't have to answer the question.
Using current popular definitions, you should say "sex neutral", otherwise people who have no idea that gender is also a synonym for sex will get confused.
"But who the hell cares?". I don't, but some people do. I believe most people wouldn't most of the time. I care who goes into the female toilets. I would like to reduce contact between rogue men and females trying to go about their business. Along those lines, one of the main arguments I've heard isn't against transgender people. It's the potential for sexual predators to abuse any breaking of the old customs to be able to get into nominally female toilets without being challenged.
"As for surgical transgender persons -- how they hell is anybody going to ever tell?". They won't be able to. They get a free pass since nobody will know better. If they get caught out (e.g. squealed on by someone who knows them) then they'll have to take the penalty. The more difficult thing will be if they are a convincing transsexual transgender (yes, it's both), then going into their genetic sex bathroom will require a confrontation with people thinking they are the opposite sex every time they go to the toilet. Cue the additional unisex bathrooms I alluded to above that we have here in Australia.
"It is a medical fact that some observable degree of intersexuality occurs". Somewhere else in the thread I've put up the numbers with a link to some detailed American statistics.
"If anything, transgender persons and gay persons deserve the compassion and sympathy of the "normals" of the world." Yes they do, as I suggested elsewhere in the thread, they deserve to be helped. But not at the expense of a much larger demographic. The solution must encompass upholding our old customs and facilitating those who don't fit into that. Clearly male/female/unisex toilets are the way forward. This can be achieved by modifying existing toilet installations.
"Weather is not climate. For about the millionth time."
One of it's meanings is the weather conditions in a particular geographical area regardless of time (as opposed to the more modern meaning of weather measurements averaged over a period of time).
Why don't you check out how the popular meaning has changed in recent years:
"Your argument is just an extension of the concept of if we allow gay people to marry, we'll have to allow people to marry horses and dogs."
Not at all. I think gay people should be free to marry. But I also think the state shouldn't be involved in marriage. That way everyone can do their own thing in regards to marriage (secular marriage, non-secular marriage, convenience marriage, etc. it doesn't matter, what you want to do is your business and you don't stuff it down anyone else's throat). My argument comes nowhere near any of this though - you've equated the arguments for no good reason.
Separate sex toilets and bathrooms in public places is a social more that has been established for at least the last few hundred years (probably more but I'd have to research that). The vast majority of people feel comfortable with this custom. In some countries it's enshrined in law. It definitively reduces contact between males and females during a vulnerable moment and gives each sex a safe haven away from the other sex that is enforced by both sexes (i.e. a male goes into the female bathroom and he'll get kicked out). AFAIK most people like and want this to stay.
Do I think transgender people should be helped out? Of course. Do as we do in Australia: public buildings (and private buildings that are a public place) have male toilets, female toilets, and single person unisex disabled / parents room style toilets (they are single units opening to the main thoroughfare that have a toilet, sink, mirror, change table, etc. that are used by one person at a time). It works. These buildings have to install disabled toilets anyway so the only thing they're changing is adding a wall mounted change table and the sign on the door to accommodate parents who need to change nappies or anyone else (transgender or not - it's unisex) for any reason they want to use it.
In purely private buildings (non-residential) they can do what they want. They're a private building. But note, in Australia at least, they'd probably not get past the planning stage if they refused to have adequate toilet facilities, including disabled toilets - so they're better off biting the bullet and making the disabled toilets a catchall for all other uses.
This retains the separate sex toilets / bathrooms and gives everyone else who doesn't fit into the majority 99% appropriate facilities to go to the toilet, etc.
Lol, my mistake, I was responding to you, not another person. So how on earth do you think that I don't understand those words? Lol. I'm using the words in the same context as you in response to you. I wouldn't have chosen those words myself - that's not the angle I'd choose.
"address the broader issue of whether social rules, customs or laws are ever fully sane."
You seemed on top of this before. I assumed you had realised that laws, customs, etc. are all relative and may make sense from only one viewpoint. Was I wrong? Is your viewpoint the "correct" viewpoint and those who oppose you are wrong?
"I do not think that word means what you think it means. Or even those words (prejudice and rational/irrational)."
I don't think you followed the thread properly. I was responding to someone else. I know the meaning of those words quite well.
Our cultural mores (which I have previously referred to in another part of this discussion) are one thing. Prejudice against people who want to break those mores is another thing. Some prejudice is rational, some is not (and that can reverse depending on who is judging it). Some customs are rational, some are not (again they just may not be rational or irrational to everyone - it depends on who you talk to).
You've got one big anecdote there. I have seen men expose themselves in public bathrooms. I have seen men trying to leer over at my genitalia. In my country men don't speak in toilets but women do (loudly and non-stop). Women do other things, other than urinate or defecate, that men don't do (e.g. stand at the mirror and apply / fix makeup whilst chatting). All anecdotes in opposition to yours. Anecdotes aren't super useful.
Sex segregated toilets makes sense. That's an opinion. Just like yours. You believe your hypothesis makes perfect sense and that your viewpoint is the only rational sensible viewpoint - lol.
Unless you have some statistics from a study, then "ZERO" is an anecdote.
I doubt you have statistics to show that there has been zero discomfort from people accommodating transgendered people in bathrooms not designated for their sex.
I doubt you have statistics to show that there hasn't been a few more wolf whistles, cat calls, etc. by guys entering the opposite sex's bathrooms.
I doubt you have statistics to show whether there has been any change in sexual assault numbers.
Note: I equally can't say that the opposite either - I have no statistics.
"In terms of total human comfort given our irrational prejudices that give rise to the discomfort in the first place"
I think you're half right. Some prejudice is irrational, but some is rational. Or at the least it may be rational to great swathes of people, and irrational to a small group.
I guess that agrees with " the broader issue of whether social rules, customs or laws are ever fully sane."
I personally don't give a rats about who's in my toilet. But I do care about who's in the ladies toilets.
Newer buildings in Australia have had male, female, and a unisex / disabled / baby room style toilet for over a decade now. Going with the numbers (i.e. there is a very small group of visibly transgendered people), this a solution to the issue.
It is currently impossible to reassign one's biological sex. There have been attempts (hormone therapy, surgery, etc.) but none of them address the underlying genetic makeup of the individual. I.e. they can make you look like the opposite sex, and hormones can change some other outward characteristics, but you still have the sex encoded DNA you're born with.
But a more useful thing to say is that the vast majority of predators are of the male sex. I.e. they are genetically male. Their sexual characteristics as a male (an X and Y chromosome) does not change if they change gender.
It's not been a problem because social mores in conjunction with laws (some specifically prohibiting this, some prohibiting anti-social behaviour - it depends on the country/state) have prevented it. Now that there is a distinct movement that is pushing to destroy these well established and enjoyed social mores, people are rightly scared that there could be repercussions beyond what is intended.
The point is that when you let this cat out of the bag, some bad behaviour becomes a distinct possibility because it becomes hard to regulate (i.e. someone with ill intent can walk into the opposite sex bathroom unchallenged), whereas before it was largely self regulated (i.e. anyone breaking the social more would be challenged).
Slashdot Mirror
Eugenics still happens.
Hospital staff (i.e. doctors) routinely pressure parents of foetuses with non-lethal (i.e. conducive to life) genetic conditions into aborting those foetuses, thereby removing babies with what they consider undesirable traits from the gene pool.
(note: this is not an anti-abortion post)
I use modified nonsense rhyme composed by myself, combined with numerals, capitalisations, and symbols.
Sometimes they're based on a phrase in English to make it easier to memorise.
Using this method it's fairly easy to remember very long passwords with words mostly not in the dictionary (and that are unique to whomever compose them).
E.g.
A less secure one: ThellowImWemmo
A more secure one: 7sKrickledefaNg.ate*plipples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's stretching it ;)
The pancreas synthesises insulin (amongst other hormones and enzymes). The pump has to be refilled from an external source and cannot synthesise anything.
I say the knife beats the gun in world changing.
Used in more conflicts.
Used more in peacetime.
Used for thousands of years longer.
Time Magazine's idea of a gadget is very narrow. Their list only contains electric gadgets.
Sigh.
"transsexualism is now known to have a physical cause".
I provided the DSM 5 definition. Please stop trying to subvert it.
"Also, you;re linking to outdated info."
I provided information from the DSM 5. This is not preliminary information and it is most certainly not outdated. The information you found is a proposal for the DSM 5. You'll note that your link refers to it as the now deprecated Gender Identity Disorder (that's how old it is).
Along those lines, how is newer information (the DSM 5 was published in 2013) outdated compared to the information you've provided (the last edit on that website was 2012, but I believe those proposals were floated around 2010)?
Here's the DSM 5 text if you can view it: http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi...
Go search for a "we propose" line, you won't find it.
I have university access to the DSM. I quoted the information directly as a courtesy.
Doctors, psychologists, and psychiaratrists use the DSM. They also use the SOC. Additionally they will use published peer reviewed journals. You switching to a new source of information is misdirection to save face. Why? Read on.
Lets go back a bit shall we... "You seem to believe that transsexualism is a mental disorder. The American Psychiatric Association says otherwise"
That's you quoting the APA as the basis for your argument. Your whole argument was based on the APA. Now you're saying "Physicians, even in the US, follow WPATH recommendations, not the APA, which was a late-comer to the process" Lol. Please.
By the way I have the SOC 7 right here. It's published in 2011, 2 years before the much newer DSM 5.
"WPATH recognizes that there is a difference between gender-non-conforming individuals and those with gender dysphoria.
And? Red-herring, you're redirecting away from your original point so you don't have to address it.
"As I said, try to keep up. :-)"
You're getting pretty boring. I doubt I'll engage in further conversation.
"Try to keep up, mkay?"
Keep up with what? All I've done is listed someone else's research. I haven't said it's wrong. I haven't said it's right. You've made poor assumptions. Keep your words in mind while reading on.
Your assertions don't match up with the DSM 5.
In case you can't get to it here is a fact sheet.
http://www.dsm5.org/documents/...
The American Psychiatric Association say that GID was specifically renamed to Gender Dysphoria to remove stigma.
You wrote "Gender dysphoria, on the other hand, allows for (and pretty much mandates) that transsexualism has a physical origin, and that the RESULT is gender dysphoria "
The DSM 5 defines transsexualism quite simply: "Transsexual denotes an individual who seeks, or has undergone, a social transition from male to female or female to male, which in many, but not all, cases also involves a somatic transition by cross-sex hormone treatment and genital surgery (sex reassignment surgery)."
This does not match your definition. Transsexualism quite specifically does not need "a somatic transition by cross-sex hormone treatment and genital surgery (sex reassignment surgery)."
You wrote "gender dysphoria - a distress about the mismatch of perceived and physical genders".
I believe you mean perceived gender and physical sex.
The DSM 5 has 6 diagnostic criteria for adults for gender dysphoria of which the patient must have at least 2 criteria present:
"1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender.
4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)."
You are half way there. The last three criteria do not require any rejection or desire of sexual characteristics.
In children you're quite off the mark, with 8 criteria, of which the child must have 6. Of the 8 criteria, there are 6 which don't refer to sexual characteristics, and 2 that do refer to sexual characteristics.
You wrote "same as you would have if you woke up tomorrow and some naughty bits were missing".
More assumptions. Sigh.
By free speech one can claim another is anything they like, as long as it doesn't cross the hate-speech line or incite violence against anyone. This is a right we all have.
As the saying goes, "my free speech doesn't end when you're offended".
Not all of us are "still trying to figure out gender fluidity".
You ask "Where's the restriction on "freedom of speech" here?"
Right here when you wrote: "it should be illegal to ask."
I'm not just sidestepping your previous points on gender, I don't care to address them in any way.
I wanted to raise the point that you want to restrict free speech by making it illegal to ask certain questions.
This is a matter of free speech when you want to restrict it.
And another source:
http://www.transsexual.org/Wha...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You promote restrictions on freedom of speech "in the name of liberty". Lol. Nice one.
Don't conflate the demand for "papers, please", which has a particular historical meaning, with what you suggested - that "it should be illegal to ask" someone's sex or gender.
Citizens have a right to free speech, of which asking questions (in the USA at least) are a protected form of free speech. You also have a right to silence in America. So if you'd like to retain you "personal privacy" you don't have to answer the question.
Using current popular definitions, you should say "sex neutral", otherwise people who have no idea that gender is also a synonym for sex will get confused.
"But who the hell cares?". I don't, but some people do. I believe most people wouldn't most of the time. I care who goes into the female toilets. I would like to reduce contact between rogue men and females trying to go about their business. Along those lines, one of the main arguments I've heard isn't against transgender people. It's the potential for sexual predators to abuse any breaking of the old customs to be able to get into nominally female toilets without being challenged.
"As for surgical transgender persons -- how they hell is anybody going to ever tell?". They won't be able to. They get a free pass since nobody will know better. If they get caught out (e.g. squealed on by someone who knows them) then they'll have to take the penalty. The more difficult thing will be if they are a convincing transsexual transgender (yes, it's both), then going into their genetic sex bathroom will require a confrontation with people thinking they are the opposite sex every time they go to the toilet. Cue the additional unisex bathrooms I alluded to above that we have here in Australia.
"It is a medical fact that some observable degree of intersexuality occurs". Somewhere else in the thread I've put up the numbers with a link to some detailed American statistics.
"If anything, transgender persons and gay persons deserve the compassion and sympathy of the "normals" of the world." Yes they do, as I suggested elsewhere in the thread, they deserve to be helped. But not at the expense of a much larger demographic. The solution must encompass upholding our old customs and facilitating those who don't fit into that. Clearly male/female/unisex toilets are the way forward. This can be achieved by modifying existing toilet installations.
To be clearer I should have said "one of the definitions of "climate" is the..."
(and its not it's).
"Weather is not climate. For about the millionth time."
One of it's meanings is the weather conditions in a particular geographical area regardless of time (as opposed to the more modern meaning of weather measurements averaged over a period of time).
Why don't you check out how the popular meaning has changed in recent years:
https://books.google.com/ngram...
"Your argument is just an extension of the concept of if we allow gay people to marry, we'll have to allow people to marry horses and dogs."
Not at all. I think gay people should be free to marry. But I also think the state shouldn't be involved in marriage. That way everyone can do their own thing in regards to marriage (secular marriage, non-secular marriage, convenience marriage, etc. it doesn't matter, what you want to do is your business and you don't stuff it down anyone else's throat). My argument comes nowhere near any of this though - you've equated the arguments for no good reason.
Separate sex toilets and bathrooms in public places is a social more that has been established for at least the last few hundred years (probably more but I'd have to research that). The vast majority of people feel comfortable with this custom. In some countries it's enshrined in law. It definitively reduces contact between males and females during a vulnerable moment and gives each sex a safe haven away from the other sex that is enforced by both sexes (i.e. a male goes into the female bathroom and he'll get kicked out). AFAIK most people like and want this to stay.
Do I think transgender people should be helped out? Of course. Do as we do in Australia: public buildings (and private buildings that are a public place) have male toilets, female toilets, and single person unisex disabled / parents room style toilets (they are single units opening to the main thoroughfare that have a toilet, sink, mirror, change table, etc. that are used by one person at a time). It works. These buildings have to install disabled toilets anyway so the only thing they're changing is adding a wall mounted change table and the sign on the door to accommodate parents who need to change nappies or anyone else (transgender or not - it's unisex) for any reason they want to use it.
In purely private buildings (non-residential) they can do what they want. They're a private building. But note, in Australia at least, they'd probably not get past the planning stage if they refused to have adequate toilet facilities, including disabled toilets - so they're better off biting the bullet and making the disabled toilets a catchall for all other uses.
This retains the separate sex toilets / bathrooms and gives everyone else who doesn't fit into the majority 99% appropriate facilities to go to the toilet, etc.
Lol, my mistake, I was responding to you, not another person. So how on earth do you think that I don't understand those words? Lol. I'm using the words in the same context as you in response to you. I wouldn't have chosen those words myself - that's not the angle I'd choose.
"address the broader issue of whether social rules, customs or laws are ever fully sane."
You seemed on top of this before. I assumed you had realised that laws, customs, etc. are all relative and may make sense from only one viewpoint. Was I wrong? Is your viewpoint the "correct" viewpoint and those who oppose you are wrong?
"I do not think that word means what you think it means. Or even those words (prejudice and rational/irrational)."
I don't think you followed the thread properly. I was responding to someone else. I know the meaning of those words quite well.
Our cultural mores (which I have previously referred to in another part of this discussion) are one thing. Prejudice against people who want to break those mores is another thing. Some prejudice is rational, some is not (and that can reverse depending on who is judging it). Some customs are rational, some are not (again they just may not be rational or irrational to everyone - it depends on who you talk to).
You've got one big anecdote there. I have seen men expose themselves in public bathrooms. I have seen men trying to leer over at my genitalia. In my country men don't speak in toilets but women do (loudly and non-stop). Women do other things, other than urinate or defecate, that men don't do (e.g. stand at the mirror and apply / fix makeup whilst chatting). All anecdotes in opposition to yours. Anecdotes aren't super useful.
Sex segregated toilets makes sense. That's an opinion. Just like yours. You believe your hypothesis makes perfect sense and that your viewpoint is the only rational sensible viewpoint - lol.
Unless you have some statistics from a study, then "ZERO" is an anecdote.
I doubt you have statistics to show that there has been zero discomfort from people accommodating transgendered people in bathrooms not designated for their sex.
I doubt you have statistics to show that there hasn't been a few more wolf whistles, cat calls, etc. by guys entering the opposite sex's bathrooms.
I doubt you have statistics to show whether there has been any change in sexual assault numbers.
Note: I equally can't say that the opposite either - I have no statistics.
"In terms of total human comfort given our irrational prejudices that give rise to the discomfort in the first place"
I think you're half right. Some prejudice is irrational, but some is rational. Or at the least it may be rational to great swathes of people, and irrational to a small group.
I guess that agrees with " the broader issue of whether social rules, customs or laws are ever fully sane."
I personally don't give a rats about who's in my toilet. But I do care about who's in the ladies toilets.
Newer buildings in Australia have had male, female, and a unisex / disabled / baby room style toilet for over a decade now. Going with the numbers (i.e. there is a very small group of visibly transgendered people), this a solution to the issue.
I agree with you.
I was arguing that if they are arguing that it doesn't matter - then they shouldn't have a problem using same sex toilets. Maybe it wasn't clear.
It is currently impossible to reassign one's biological sex. There have been attempts (hormone therapy, surgery, etc.) but none of them address the underlying genetic makeup of the individual. I.e. they can make you look like the opposite sex, and hormones can change some other outward characteristics, but you still have the sex encoded DNA you're born with.
"Predators can be any gender", true.
But a more useful thing to say is that the vast majority of predators are of the male sex. I.e. they are genetically male. Their sexual characteristics as a male (an X and Y chromosome) does not change if they change gender.
Less than 0.1% of births are intersex / ambiguous genitalia / ambiguous sex.
Said another way, more than 99.9% of births are male or female.
http://www.isna.org/faq/freque...
It's not been a problem because social mores in conjunction with laws (some specifically prohibiting this, some prohibiting anti-social behaviour - it depends on the country/state) have prevented it. Now that there is a distinct movement that is pushing to destroy these well established and enjoyed social mores, people are rightly scared that there could be repercussions beyond what is intended.
The point is that when you let this cat out of the bag, some bad behaviour becomes a distinct possibility because it becomes hard to regulate (i.e. someone with ill intent can walk into the opposite sex bathroom unchallenged), whereas before it was largely self regulated (i.e. anyone breaking the social more would be challenged).