LogFAQs > #956033503

Sahuagin posted...

is it wrong for a male to enter the women's changing room at a swimming pool? and then is it also wrong for him to get naked there?

Getting naked would qualify as indecent exposure, since he's not explicitly permitted to get naked there. Simply entering would not inherently be wrong, but there aren't many possible non-nefarious reasons for him to enter, and entering for nefarious reasons is wrong (by simple virtue of being nefarious).

Sahuagin posted...

I didn't say "man" I said "male"

but regardless what is the difference between the two situations? ie: why is it wrong for a "man" to enter?

Honestly, I don't see much by way of inherent moral wrong in either situation. Nudity is morally neutral and inflicts no inherent harm. The only harm or moral foul arises in how it is applied or treated, which is a set of conscious decisions from the people involved in the situation. In truth, desegregating facilities like these wouldn't be a problem at all.

In practice, the issue boils down to expectations: You don't expect a dong in the ladies' room, so when that happens, people feel uncomfortable. The thing is, you also don't expect a full-body tattoo of Spongebob. Somebody shows up in one of these spas with a full-body Spongebob tattoo, though, and you aren't going to get a public announcement about how her daughter was "scandalized" and angry protests over the "incident." Why the different standards? Why are penises so special and horrible and unexpected that seeing one warrants such a gross overreaction? Simply being unexpected doesn't explain that, especially where you're significantly more likely to see a trans woman at a spa than you are any countless number of other specific unusual aesthetic variations.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.