2008 Woodie Awards
Kirk segregation is the best solution
By: Nick Shlafer
Issue date: 9/28/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
When Kirk Hall announced that it was doing away with unisex bathrooms, I predicted a considerable backlash from students. Sure enough, last week in the Weekly, two opinion articles and a staff editorial were written to criticize this administrative decision. I would like to respond to these articles with the assertion that segregated bathrooms are not only practical but necessary.
First of all, there is nothing contradictory about segregated bathrooms in a dorm with gender-blind housing. Bathrooms are public and must therefore be shared by everyone on a floor, whereas with housing, you can pick your roommate and actively make a choice to either live in a gender-blind room or not.
The main argument I hear, though, is that the decision is disrespectful to the transgender community; those who cannot identify with being either male or female no longer have a bathroom to choose. In other words, certain people feel "uncomfortable" with segregated bathrooms, and we should therefore respect their rights and attempt not to offend them.
On the other hand, there are also students who clearly feel "uncomfortable" with unisex bathrooms. These students have gone to the RAs with their complaints over the years, and they have done so privately to apparently avoid being chastised. Parents have also gotten involved, further signifying the relative importance of this issue and that it has been both ongoing and under-the-radar. On a campus that supposedly prides itself on tolerance, the fact that these students could not go public with their complaints is worrisome to me.
So, there are indeed two groups of offended students in regards to the bathrooms. Since the change occurred at all, the group that is uncomfortable with gender-blind bathrooms is clearly either much larger in number or much more significant to Macalester than those with an opposing view. With this in mind, why do certain people feel that the transgender group deserves more respect and recognition of their rights? Why should we cater to them and ignore the other group of students?
First of all, there is nothing contradictory about segregated bathrooms in a dorm with gender-blind housing. Bathrooms are public and must therefore be shared by everyone on a floor, whereas with housing, you can pick your roommate and actively make a choice to either live in a gender-blind room or not.
The main argument I hear, though, is that the decision is disrespectful to the transgender community; those who cannot identify with being either male or female no longer have a bathroom to choose. In other words, certain people feel "uncomfortable" with segregated bathrooms, and we should therefore respect their rights and attempt not to offend them.
On the other hand, there are also students who clearly feel "uncomfortable" with unisex bathrooms. These students have gone to the RAs with their complaints over the years, and they have done so privately to apparently avoid being chastised. Parents have also gotten involved, further signifying the relative importance of this issue and that it has been both ongoing and under-the-radar. On a campus that supposedly prides itself on tolerance, the fact that these students could not go public with their complaints is worrisome to me.
So, there are indeed two groups of offended students in regards to the bathrooms. Since the change occurred at all, the group that is uncomfortable with gender-blind bathrooms is clearly either much larger in number or much more significant to Macalester than those with an opposing view. With this in mind, why do certain people feel that the transgender group deserves more respect and recognition of their rights? Why should we cater to them and ignore the other group of students?
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Danni Sigwalt
posted 9/28/07 @ 11:47 AM CST
So, suggesting that people question societal norms is unreasonable? I didn't say that people needed to change their opinions, just question the status quo. (Continued…)
jess Hasken
posted 10/02/07 @ 8:47 PM CST
I am concerned at Mr. Shlafer's suggestion that it is Macalester's "responsibility" to sacrifice the safety and sense of security of the minority in favor of the preferences of the majority. (Continued…)
Nick
posted 10/03/07 @ 11:35 AM CST
Jess,
Thanks for responding to my article with a thoughtful, constructive argument based on actual facts and not WGSS/HMCS theory.
I don't think my sentiments are archaic, though. (Continued…)
Post a Comment