Post #2779800

2026-02-09 05:41 UTC

That's a good question. In fact, I think just yesterday on reddit the front page had a photo of a sign at a public bath in China saying something along the lines of "No homosexual men allowed", with top comments hypothesizing it was probably more about banning unwanted or public sex acts than homophobia itself. I assert that this kind of gender segregation is usually about deterring sexualization (and even sexual violence). This is the case for spas, locker rooms, toilets, or even more general places like gyms. My basic position is that being able to deter unwanted sexualization is a useful goal for many reasons, but that's a rudimentary attempt to solve it. At best, I'd say it's a coping mechanism which should be understood as such. **So I don't believe they must immediately be abolished,** that might be utopian, we need to begin mainstreaming a culture that would enable these sexist institutions to be abolished. But ultimately: - They're a product of heteronormativity. Obviously there are plenty of people attracted to the same gender who won't be deterred by this. - They're a product of normalized sexual abuse in culture. There's a "common sense" that if you put men and women in the same room in a state of undress, then abuse will happen. But we know that's not some ultimate "human nature"! It's a result of culture and social structure. Consider nudist groups and nudist society as a direct counterpoint to the cultural sexualization of nudity.

Replies (2)

@dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-02-09 06:08

I think people often don't seem to realize that sex-segregated bathrooms were a relatively recent invention, going back only a few hundred years: https://time.com/4337761/history-sex-segregated-bathrooms/ I do think the assumption that women will be attacked or sexually assaulted underlies at least some motivation (the TIME article above claims it is a view of women as weak and the public as dangerous - which generally fits that view). The fact that this reasoning was used to justify segregation in every aspect of public life, to the point of having separate train cars, and yet we saw that segregation go away nearly everywhere but bathrooms, it makes it seem like the claims about safety could have been overblown (or maybe more accurately: that segregation doesn't necessarily protect as much as it claims). The TIME article argues that the only reason bathrooms are still segregated has more to do with the difficulty with changing codes and standards than anything like actual safety reasons. OK, here's another question: in the Middle East / Western Asia misogyny is quite a significant problem (that might be an understatement), and in northern Syria there was a women-only militia formed called the [YPJ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Protection_Units). The YPJ was formed as a group based on egalitarian, feminist ideology and has been praised for having improved the power and situation of women in that region. It seems to me that segregation is sometimes used to oppress women, but sometimes segregation is also how women are able to carve out independence and push back against their oppression. What do you make of this example of women who under extreme oppression were able to form a women-only militia which then increased the power of women in the region?

Open ##2779802
@tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml 2026-02-09 06:10

Link to that reddit post

Open ##2779803