It's typically acceptable for a woman to express such concern of being harassed or assaulted, but not men, when in both scenarios, the "attacker" is a man.
Again, not saying double standards are inherently bad or good, but they exist.
Unless it's statistically more likely to a significant degree that women would be harassed by men than men by men or women by women. In which case it makes complete sense to make arrangements accounting for the majority cases and leave the minority cases to be handled in some other fashion as they arise.
I'm not denying that. That's why I say double standards aren't inherently bad or good. It's only logical to make the separation as it is currently done, but at the same time, people shouldn't act like the men's concern is somehow different than women's concern in reference to comfort.
oh, as for the downplaying of the survey, I kept forgetting to reply. I can't prove that you were just "making fun of me" and not downplaying the survey, but it very well seems that you were doing both by mentioning the local gas station suggestion box. By mentioning that, it appeared as if you were making a comparison of the two. I'll leave it at that.
As it probably should be. Comfort is only ONE of the reasons for segregation in the first place, and in those cases, it is because men are able to easily overpower women-- women who are legitimately afraid to be around men in a vulnerable state.
Correction, Comfort is the MAIN reason for the segregation. The women's concern is just as legitimate as the men's concern, because they are the same thing. How is the man not in any less vulnerable state? Haven't heard "Don't drop the soap" before?
As pointed out, the person next to you does not affect you washing yourself in any way, shape or form. You are simply afraid, prejudging that a man might do something or just not comfortable with the idea of sharing a shower. It's one or the other and people label it as "legitimate" for women and "homophobia" for men.
Plenty of males and females are uncomfortable changing or showering around the same ***-- that doesn't mean they're afraid of them.
This is my point exactly. They are people expressing otherwise. Some people may just feel uncomfortable changing around homosexuals, but they aren't afraid of them.
It probably would, but not significantly, no. However, shared locker rooms and showers-- places where people are undressing-- are the primary places for elevated risk, and surprise surprise,
From my "research" and years of propaganda reception, rape more commonly occurs with someone you know in a private area. If you were alone in a public shower, I can see an increase in rape, but I would argue a higher result of sexual harassment than assault.
these are the places that opponents of gays in the military are most concerned with.
Concerned, yes, but not because of an increase of assault or harassment, just out of comfort. If a *** person wasn't doing those things before, s/he probably isn't going to start doing them being open.
In any case, that was my point to the OP, these concerns aren't based on bigotry, just comfort.
If there was any doubt from my earlier post, I strongly support the repeal. Restricting the freedom to perform a job one is perfectly capable of doing based on what is at best a weak case for an inconvenience just doesn't jive with me in the least. I thought I made that clear enough otherwise.
You say weak, yet all of society (practically world wide) segregates men and women on the same inconvenience.
This is all politics. Women are still restricted from performing certain jobs and there is no outcry, because no one cares beyond women being able to serve.
I wouldn't be surprised if they treat the homosexuals just as they do women, not authorized to be in certain combat arms and special teams since they are the ones that express the greatest discomfort. LOL that would be funny because society would fight that and then the women would be upset because they haven't been able to join those organization for a much longer time.