http://www.nouse.co.uk/2009/05/29/controversial-toilets-for-all-ugm-motion-passed/

I don’t see a problem with gender neutral toilets, I quite like the idea. I’m female (sex and gender) and wouldn’t have a problem using gender neutral toilets (or as I see them, unisex toilets, or should that be unigender, I get confused). If some people feel uncomfortable using male or female specific toilets then I think its unfair not to offer a gender neutral toilet.

I understand some people (due to either religious or other personal beliefs) might feel uncomfortable using a unisex toilet but I’m sure the vast majority of students wouldn’t have a problem with using one.

Edited by a moderator

I am a fairly sensible person, and a pragmatic one. I therefore, when first hearing of the motion, took the “This is ridiculous stance”, purely on the basis of practicality. However, having read it thoroughly, I quickly realised that the measures Peter is advocating are entirely possible. ‘Where possible’ seems to me to be an important part of the argument. Within practical confines there is no reason why these measures cannot put in place, using existing toilets would bypass the cost and building issues.

Whether one agrees or not with the concept of transgender, whatever my personal views on those who ignorantly dismiss the condition may be, this Union has taken a stance to improve trans rights and awareness. It would, therefore, be inconsistent to ignore such a simple and easy method to make people feel more comfortable in what is their university.

Do not marginalise people simply on their number, we would certainly not hear people dismissing the need for disabled toilets on the basis that disabled students do not make up the majority. Although I find drawing similarities between trans people and disabled people a minefield, perhaps the similarity that both may be referred to as differently-abled may help some students, such as Mr. Taylor to understand their needs in a way that does not challenge his limited perspective on the world.

I do find it worrying that we may see Mr. Taylor in politics at some point, although these fears are allayed slightly by my faith that most people would not vote for someone whose arguments are so frequently shallowly based on his long-held opinions, whilst ignoring the facts, and are put to them in such an aggressive tone. Whilst I would consider to take it upon myself to recommend to him that a calmer, considered approach would be more effective, I will refrain, hoping that he will continue to cock-up his argument through his inability to express himself sensibly (Of course, this decision may have something to do with my personal dislike for his right-wing opinions!).

Did you, Dan? I’m shocked.

Anyway, they all reached quoracy and all passed. Including ratification of Union Council minutes, which is rare.

“What about the majority? People get so dragged along by paranoia and hype that they forget that most people either, don’t care or don’t want these changes and will vote out of ignorance or sympathy.”

The majority will STILL HAVE THE SAME AS EVER. This is ONLY where there are multiple toilets and no objection to changing them from staff (i.e. in Langwith there are three toilets near each other so one would become an unlabeled WC) or where building new ones to include all three. It’s common decency and it’s STANDARD policy now.

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/your-questions/which-toilets-should-trans-people-use

“In the longer term, you might like to consider making some toilets unisex so that gender is not an issue”

Standard, nationwide. It’s not a uni thing and it’s not a nonissue. Again, most of us won’t understand the problem because we’re not trans but the people who *do* understand the problem, out of the entire 31,000 word thread, have all said that they’re voting *yes* to the motion. So why the hell, when there are NO NEGATIVES, would you vote against it?

We’re still keeping gender toilets there – we’re just having an unlabeled toilet as well!

In addition, I did answer the point on signs. I said that now you’ve changed your position, claiming that the problem is not the harsh judgement in itself, rather that it is provoked by a sign on the door. As if it would be perfectly fine judging anyone under different circumstances. Simple as this: you either believe that the whole problem is that transgendered persons are being harshly judged or offended by people, to which I responded that so do numerous other social groups, or your problem is that there is a sign in the door that makes all the difference, which seems a bit petty on its own.

“would rather not be reminded that there is something that feels so wrong about them.” This is what I have been saying all along: you think the answer is to simply forget there is something about yourself that is bothering you? I believe that the best way to deal with it is face the fact that you don’t like something about yourself, and try to grow out of it, a task which I realise must be extremely difficult. However, there are people who can help with such problems. Running away from a problem does not solve the actual issue though. It is like saying that having a problem is fine, as long as you can avoid facing it.
A.

I think it’s very petty to be honest with you. The debate on this wall seems to have become more reasonable and Elliot, I appreciate your post as I am sure many others opposing this motion will. However I am still unmoved from my original position, viewing these motions to be PC, motivated by the over-vocal minority and frankly, a compete waste of time because I don’t think people that are *so* easily offended should be legislated for through a UGM. I honestly think it sets a terrible precedent and for reasons not of ‘anti-LGBT’ or any other hysterical reasoning, but for sound reasoning, I voted against these motions.

Well, Dan (and any others who may feel the same way), therein lies the main problem with your arguments. Until you can understand this (and you have surely seen in this comment thread that there are people who are uncomfortable writing their sex on a form, and therefore that there is something to be understood), how can you have a close enough understanding of the motion and the way it would affect people to be able to vote or comment on it one way or the other?

As I see it, it is just a matter of simple courtesy to at least slightly research what is being discussed before weighing in. If you did research it, you would learn, amongst other things, that sex and gender are very different things, that many people have a different gender from their sex, and that it is entirely possible for someone to be agendered.

To be honest, despite being on the YUSU LGBT committee, I still don’t understand every single issue that concerns trans people and as a cisgendered man I’m not sure I ever will, however hard I try. What I do know is that many feel uncomfortable filling out forms that ask for their sex rather than their gender, and even more so using a toilet that they don’t belong in yet feel pressured to use by other members of society. As such, given that these motions only ask to do certain things ‘where possible’ and will therefore not impede on anyone else’s happiness or comfort, I don’t see how any harm can come of voting for the motions.

This whole situation is exactly the reason why this motion was ill-thought of as an idea. The fact of the matter is that we are suddenly expected to vote on an issue that most of us will know pretty much nothing about. This kind of polarisation was simply inevitable. In all seriousness, how many students do you expect to know much about transgender issues? I will not be hiding behind my own finger here, I know almost nothing about trans issues. They are simply never discussed where me and Aris come from, and I am pretty sure that many students here would have a largely similar level of knowledge.

That said, do you honestly think that this friction was really the best way to raise awareness and promote understanding about trans issues? Would it not have been a better idea if this motion was put forward after the end of a relevant campaign – in other words, after people were educated about these issues and after awareness had been raised? I bet that most of this would have been avoided.

However, there was no such campaign, and we can all see the results. Everyone supporting this motion is automatically labeled as over-sensitive, attention-seeking and generally mentally unstable, whereas everyone opposing it is automatically labeled as an illiberal phobic bigot. None of this is what I’d be describing as ‘understanding’, by any definition of the term.

What about the majority? People get so dragged along by paranoia and hype that they forget that most people either, don’t care or don’t want these changes and will vote out of ignorance or sympathy.

This is an intriguing topic but one for a UGM? Please! It’s things like this that really make me laugh about our union. The debate of Sex vs. Gender is simple. Sex is biological, gender is a social construct and something we can choose.

Simple. Sorted. Done.

Who’d have thought at a top 10 university there would be such a debate about where people go to the loo?

Comment edited by a moderator

P.S the closing remark was an attempt at humour…. not that many of you would get it considering how seriously you take yourselves!

PPS. How can you say you’re “more open and willing than anyone to hear all views and points” when your facebook status from Wednesday until today has been advocating voting against this motion (as you have already said you have) without any mention of these discussions?

I just hope no there are no international students at York reading this – I’d be ashamed of having an elected ISA Officer with these views.

For people who feel fundamentally alienated by such binaries – people who are either intersexed or who cannot identify with a prescribed gender – it is an extremely uncomfortable thing for one to go into this kind of environment, where gender is systemically asserted and questioned.

What the motion simply does is offer individuals a choice, which would only take a certain redefining of toilet facilities currently reserved for disabled users. It would make the lives of real, existing York students a lot easier, and would be relatively painless to implement.

As such, I’d encourage people to vote in support of an inclusive motion, rather than follow some of the rather drab and ignorant commonsense views posted above.

A person with a name of one gender and the biological sex of the other may feel obliged to answer the question “Sex” with their biological sex – thus effectively out-ing themselves as trans. This may not seem like a big deal to most people but many trans people hate their bodies and their “gender history” and would rather not be reminded that there is something that feels so wrong about them.

I’m not trying to portray us as victims here but it’s a fact – being trans hurts. Living in a body that is so completely wrong hurts and we’d love to just be able to forget about it and carry on. For many of us, the support of our friends and families can help us feel more comfortable living as who we are, going along fine until a ridiculously simple thing like a box on a form or the sign on a bathroom door reminds us of the ugly fact that we are not like others of our gender. Should we lie about our “Sex” on a form? (I have) What bathroom should we use? Simple things that remind us that we have the wrong body type for who we are.

Similarly, in a bathroom on campus, if we are challenged about our right to be there and answer “I can be here because i am transexual” (explaining the situation as i think it’s Aris keeps suggesting) then we are putting that other person in a position of power over us, telling them an incredibly personal fact about ourselves that can be, and sometimes is, used against us. Not wanting to do this is NOT feeling somehow ashamed of being trans, it’s wanting a little privacy, wanting not to be reminded about the body that we hate, wanting not to be known as “that tranny” but as a person. I am happy to come out here in a public place, using my real name and admit to being a transexual. But i know many who would not be able to do this and i would never make them.

Also, there are very, very few people in this discussion who are truly transphobic (a term that does not imply a “fear” of trans people but a negative stance towards them and / or a denial of their rights). I can still remember not knowing that trans people exist and i know some people on the supporting side have used language that is inaccessible to those outside the LGBT community (and, indeed many in it ) and i apologise if i have been one of them. I would be very willing to explain terms etc. to anyone who is confused.

And what if you have both Dan? What are you then? A freak, an outcast, not welcome on campus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex