Flushed With Controversy
UNC's Push for Unisex Bathrooms is Overflowing with Problems
Alex Ortiz
November 2005
When a person feels the urge to visit the lavatory, he is faced with a choice. The person can enter through the door labeled “men” or the door labeled “women.” On the surface, this appears to be a very simple process, but according to some students at UNC, it is not. In recent weeks, groups such as the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender-Straight Alliance, GLBT-SA, have called for new unisex facilities in university buildings in order to end the distress the above choice causes transgender students.
The controversy has led to the discussion of an interesting question. Is the existence of sexed bathrooms, normal bathrooms, discriminatory towards transgender students? Although it may appear obvious to the reader that bathroom segregation is about how people use the bathroom rather than sexual orientation, the issue has caused much debate on campus.
In a Nov. 2 editorial on gender identity and nondiscrimination, The Daily Tar Heel deemed unisex bathrooms an important enough issue to devote an entire paragraph to the topic. The editorial board argued that the only way to avoid engendering distrust or anger through the University community would be the inclusion of at least one unisex bathroom in all new buildings. However, they conceded that “putting unisex restrooms in existing buildings could be cost-prohibitive.”
For the DTH, it appears that the debate over unisex bathrooms hinges not on competing value systems, but on the justification of expense. In the same editorial, the DTH equates discrimination against race with discrimination against people with gender identity issues. The problem with this argument is that the two are not the same. If African American students were being forced to use discriminatory bathrooms, monetary constraints would be the last thing coming from the pens of DTH editors.
The GLBT-SA’s Transgender Awareness Week, which started on Nov. 14, included unisex bathroom integration as one of its explicit goals. The opening event, Trans 101 Workshop, provided some insight into how the gay community views gendered bathroom “discrimination.”
The educational workshop was hosted by the Gender Mutiny Collective, a transgender activist group that travels around North Carolina promoting queer politics.
During the opening session of the workshop, which featured a humorous puppet show, puppeteers were good enough to include a bit of bathroom humor. One of the transgender puppets had to go pee but was hesitant to enter a public bathroom because “peeing in public bathrooms kinda sucks because of the whole gender binary thing.” Thankfully it was rescued by another friendly puppet who agreed to be its bathroom buddy.
Goofy as they were, these puppets brought to light one of the main principles of transgender politics. The LGBTQ community is fighting against sexed bathrooms because they feel that gender identities are being forced upon them.
Ironically, these very same students proclaim the power of self-definition. They see sex and gender on a spectrum where a person chooses to shape their own fluid identity. If they feel that their gender-autonomy is this strong, then there is no way that using bathrooms marked “men” or “women” will influence their personal identification.
After the puppet show, the workshop included a panel discussion addressing anonymous questions that attendees submitted. In response to a question on unisex bathrooms, one of the panel members commented that “we’re not advocating changing all bathrooms to gender neutral, we’re just advocating having an option open to transgender individuals.”
However, this logic is problematic. As stated by the GLBT-SA, one of the main goals of Awareness Week and of the transgender movement is visibility. Sectioning off transgender students into separate bathrooms would definitely not increase visibility. If transgender individuals were even comfortable enough to use these facilities, it is likely that the effect would be just the opposite.
The transgender community is faced with a dilemma. If they believe that separate is inherently unequal then a third bathroom option would not work. Assuming this is true, the University is left with the two unisex options: either single-occupancy unisex bathrooms or multi-occupancy unisex bathrooms.
During the program’s small group discussion section, GLBT-SA Co-chairman Tommy Rimbach contended that “it doesn’t make any sense to have [bathrooms] gendered if one person uses them at a time.”
Clarisse Rodriguez said, “I personally would use a single stalled bathroom because I don’t like peeing when there’s someone right next to me. It’s just awkward.” Yet she acknowledged that multi-occupancy unisex bathrooms are a future goal. “If people really have a problem with it, there are still bathrooms they can go to,” she said.
Having these private bathrooms, however, would not increase transgender visibility. LGBTQ students would still lack contact with the heterosexual community during bathroom time. Furthermore, you can not politicize something as intimate as a bathroom and then expect to maintain a pleasant, private place to defecate while simultaneously fighting for acceptance.
So, Ms. Rodriguez feels awkward with one person next to her while she’s peeing. It is difficult to imagine the tremendous awkwardness, discomfort, and lack of privacy that would pervade multi-occupancy unisex bathrooms. There are many people that would not be pleased seeing a member of the opposite sex wandering around their bathroom. How can LGBTQ students feel uncomfortable with current bathrooms and simultaneously push for lavatories that would make other people feel just as uncomfortable?
The answer is that they can’t. Even people that do not recognize the obvious absurdity of such facilities can see that unisex bathrooms at UNC would not accomplish their advocates’ stated goals. Instead they would spur more discomfort among the student body and pit straight students against LGBTQ students.
By examining the resume of the group that hosted the recent workshop, readers can see that the desire for unisex bathrooms is the desire of one group to segregate itself from the community rather than a call for equality.
The Gender Mutiny Collective actually considers itself an anarchist movement. During the program, members of the Gender Mutiny Collective encouraged attendees to help themselves to the rows of free zines that they had placed on a table. One zine, written by the Collective, was titled: “Principles of Engagement: The Anarchist Influence on Queer Youth Culture” and emblazed with the motto: “Queers Bash Back!” The zine pushes violent and radical action as the only viable way toward transgender visibility.
If anarchists believe that all forms of government and hierarchy are inherently oppressive, why was the Gender Mutiny Collective here in the first place? By encouraging students to fight for unisex bathrooms through the bureaucratic hierarchy of the University, the Gender Mutiny Collective contradicts its mission. Shouldn’t this anarchist group be setting fire to university property rather than appealing, with all civility, to the University through its oppressed students?
Anarchist principles aside, the Gender Mutiny Collective’s zine alienates the straight community. The last page of the zine reads: “I don’t trust a boy who doesn’t like sucking cock.”
Is this the kind of organization that University administrators should be listening to? Probably not. Unfortunately, it appears that they are.