Introduction/Background
Figure 2: When women joined the workforce facilities like factories were required to install ladies only rest rooms.
For centuries, Western society has used architecture as a weapon to discriminate towards individuals who don’t identify as white, straight, and male. Architecture – like libraries, railroad cars, and toilets – have been used since the Industrial Revolution to exclude and dictate the lives of white women, women and men of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and people with disabilities. As the public realm spiked, and WW2 began, white women and colored men were brought into the social life to work within the military and factories. However, these minority groups rarely escaped the objectification and exclusion from white, wealthy, cis men. The governance and segregation within public restrooms enforced socially constructed perceptions of gender – that there’s only two genders (male and female) – presented in opposition. Not only is this belief used to belittle women, but it also singles out transgender, gender fluid, and other queer individuals from the public lifestyle. It is shocking to see how the public restroom – a place designed for one of the most natural and common actions among humans – is interlaced with the patriarchal system that has restricted the lifestyle of so many individuals within the past and present.
Industrial Revolution
Figure 2: When women joined the workforce facilities like factories were required to install ladies-only restrooms.
Before the Industrial Revolution, which occurred in the 18th and 19th century, the social realm of Western society was mostly male and white. Once the war started, the workforce dwindled and women were asked to leave their domestic lifestyle to be members of society. However, the knowledge and freedom women were now exposed to scared policymakers into enacting separation laws for public restrooms, as well as, other community spaces. In 1887, the Factories Workshops Act enacted industries, who chose to hire women, to provide a wash-room and water-closet for the female employees, that were completely separated from the men. With this act, industries that wanted to hire female staff, were required to upgrade the restrooms, making it more work and less desirable to employ women. Once the war was finished, and the veterans returned, labor and property were taken from white women and black men to be given to the soldiers. Right as women finally became members of society, they were shoved back into their private home and domestic lifestyle.
Gender
Figure 3: Women are almost always forced to wait in line for the restrooms in public, while there rarely ever a line for the men’s
Through the social realm, women have been depicted as morally responsible and religious, private, and domestic. As the architecture was adapting to the new presence of women within society, this restricting box of what a “true woman” is, was perpetuated onto these social spaces (Kogan 151). Libraries for women were small, very homey, and only provided magazines on home advice and fashion; while male libraries were very tall and open, with beautiful architecture, and a huge emphasis on knowledge and books. Women’s restrooms were, infacted, just men’s restrooms altered to “work” for women; however, they don’t work. Women’s restrooms present multiple inequalities based on gender: women are provided with fewer toilets in the restrooms, their layouts have an extreme focus on privacy and beauty, and they generally tend to have to travel further and wait longer to use them. All of this control emitted among social architecture was claimed to be protecting women and keeping them safe, when actually causes more harm than good.
Racism
Figure 4: Jim Crow restroom segregation
Throughout American history many civil rights issues have occurred because of the public restroom. “The term ‘restroom’ developed in the early twentieth century to describe public washrooms in small towns which aimed to serve farm families in town for a day of shopping. Located in business blocks or homes near the business district, the small-town ‘restrooms’ were like domestic spaces with small toilet rooms and larger parlors, dining rooms and kitchens” (Baldwin, 264-274). One of the many early struggles involved racially segregated restrooms with the motive of white people setting forth a message of superiority against minorities. The issue stemmed further than just racially segregated spaces, but people of color had significantly less access to public restrooms than white people where it was most convenient. You could find areas that contained “whites only” restrooms, but there was hardly ever “blacks only” restrooms in those same places and a lot of times in these same areas you would find signs near restrooms that said, “Mexicans and Dogs not allowed”. The racism during this time was so obscured that white people equated people of color to dogs. They had no access to restrooms and their signs essentially insinuated that they could do their business outside like a dog would (Colker, 3-20).
Americans with Disabilities Act
Figure 5: Unisex restrooms excluding disabled bodied individuals
In 1990, The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted, and this act allowed for many issues concerning public spaces, including restrooms, to be revisited. A main concern with ADA was the inaccessibility of restrooms for those with disabilities that used assistance from someone of the opposite sex. This is when the idea of a ‘family-style’, ‘unisex’ restrooms came into play. Although with good intentions and likely a good solution in theory, in practice, this neutral style restroom created another form of segregation by excluding disabled individuals from being able to use a public restroom alongside able-bodied individuals. With the idea of universal design, it goes beyond more than just creating accessible restrooms, but not excluding people with disabilities from general, everyday activities that would not be a problem for an able-bodied person. This became an issue of debate on whether states would permit a person with a disability to be accompanied by someone of the opposite sex. (Colker, 3-20).
Today’s Civil Rights Issues with Gender, Sexism, and Transphobia
Figure 6: ‘Gender-neutral’ restrooms excluding transgender people from the social sphere of public restrooms
In recent years, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the discussion of gender-neutral restrooms. There have been bathroom bills introduced in some states that would restrict transgender people’s access to use public restrooms of their choice and much of this controversial debate has led to sexism and transphobia around the United States. Current Texas Governor, Ted Cruz, shed light on this discussion as a part of his presidential campaign back in 2016, where he suggested that ‘men’ (referring to transgender male-to-female women) being allowed alone in restrooms with young girls would essentially create danger in these public spaces. However, this form of transphobia has led transgender and non-binary people to be excluded from the social sphere of public restrooms. The social construction of gender and the roles and restrictions created by this concept has elevated the issues of transphobia. The way in which we distinguish public restrooms in America has led to this controversy over transgender people’s access to public restrooms. Gender identity reflects nothing more than the portrayed image of a person and the way their qualities align with society’s allocated roles by which correlate to a person’s sex assigned at birth. Similar to the way that ADA emphasizes the inclusion of disabled bodied individuals in the social sphere of public restrooms, many politically left-wing people advocate for the accessibility of transgender people to use the public restroom of their choice and whatever they feel most confident using because, regardless of what Ted Cruz might have to say about the “dangers” of this, there is no link between trans-inclusive policies and restroom safety (Swales, 290-309).
Case Study
Figure 7: A single-unit, gender-neutral bathroom design to exclude discrimination towards minority groups.
This single-unit, gender-neutral design for public restrooms, by Kara Biczykowski and Joel Sanders, focused on a universal concept to eliminate the discrimination and violence inflicted on transgender individuals. However, while the project was conjured by the mistreatment of queer people, they designed a safe and accessible space for all humans, no matter their skin color, ability, sexual orientation, or gender identification. This restroom is meant to interact with “lobbies and [or] circulation corridors” (784), while also allowing these connecting spaces to either be indoor or outdoor – as another universal quality. Each bathroom stall is completely private, floor to ceiling, with a toilet, sink, and extra space for a wheelchair or another individual (785). This provides complete privacy and safety for individuals seeking it. The design also includes a communal area, at the center of the bathroom, with hand-washing stations and seating. Creating a restroom like this one, helps remove the potential for violence, exclusion, and belittlement towards minorities – that has been embedded into our patriarchal society, as well as our bathrooms.
Conclusion & Disclaimer
We know and understand that we have only skimmed the surface of the disgraceful mistreatment inflicted on minorities, if that was the case, this could be a book. However, we wanted to bring forth the reality that discrimination and the patriarchal system are embedded within our everyday lives; even in a place where we expel our waste.
Bibliography
“Chapter 1: Introduction.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, by
Harvey Luskin Molotch, W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library, 2020.
“Chapter 7: Sex Separation: The Cure-All for Victorian Social Anxiety.” Toilet:
Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, by Terry S Kogan, W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library, 2020.
Sanders, Joel, and Susan Stryker. “Stalled: Gender-Neutral Public Bathrooms.”
South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 115, no. 4, 2016, pp. 779–788., doi:10.1215/00382876-3656191.
Baldwin, P. C. “Public Privacy: Restrooms in American Cities, 1869-1932.” Journal of Social
History, vol. 48, no. 2, 2014, pp. 264–288., doi:10.1093/jsh/shu073.
Colker, Ruth. “Public Restrooms: Flipping the Default Rules.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017, pp. 3–20., doi:10.2139/ssrn.2937718.
Swales, Stephanie. “Transphobia in the Bathroom: Sexual Difference, Alterity and Jouissance.” Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, vol. 23, no. 3, 2018, pp. 290–309., doi:10.1057/s41282-018-0099-7.