Should we have unisex locker rooms and bathrooms?

[Thalassa]

Really?! What region are you from? I live near Seattle, and my gym membership is a low to moderate price. I haven't lived anywhere else, though, so I don't know about the rest of the U.S.

I'm talking about majority public schools and middle of the road business or department stores and restaurants. This won't just affect private gyms. The yoga studios I have belonged to, even in relatively affluent upper middle class parts of Los Angeles, either had a single restroom or cheap restroom doors. The shower/changing room only had clear shower curtains, and wide open areas.

I'm talking about public restrooms - the most private of which I've honestly only seen in five star hotels if they accomdate more than one person - and public school locker rooms. Public school can vary by district, but very few are in Bel Air, most are at best in blended or middle class areas, at worst totally low income.

This is America. Making policy straight across the board affects many different types and social classes of people, it's not like the EU, where they actually get something for their taxes.

Also, if anyone cares for me to explain my "on the street" comments more fully, homeless people experience real social discrimination, including bathroom discrimination, being locked out of even public beach bathrooms and park bathrooms at 9-10 pm, for both sexes, even in one of the most liberal states in the country. People should just be happy to use a clean safe restroom.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

What I tend to wonder is if there would be so many creepy sexual attitudes between men and women if they were not so segregated and differentiated from each other.

From parts of the world where ultra-orthodox Muslims are abundant, women have reported experiences of being very unsubtly gawked at for having uncovered hair, calves, or elbows. Clearly, men the world over do not necessarily uncontrollably perv on random women with exposed calves. It would appear to be a byproduct of the local culture's mores against such exposure.

So the question is, if in attempting to avoid those creepy situations, one actually capitulates to them, and preserves their existence forever. In some of the concerns being raised about unisex bathrooms, are people effectively saying "it would be so creepy, maybe even dangerous, for women to stop covering themselves. I don't think we should do it"?

This is why people are a bit overwhelmed or skeptical about this whole business. It's like, no I don't hate Trans people, I may even like them (depending on who "I" am) but why does this have to be foisted on children and there are space and monetary costs to consider.

I see it exactly the other way around. If I were to change bathrooms for only one age group, I'd change it for children. Children are not (generally) sexually active or even sexually differentiated enough for it to produce as much friction, and the younger you desegregate people, the more stupid, stereotypical ideals you prevent.

 

[Beargryllz]

Yes.

Cut the crap and just be done with it.

Segregation is a relic of the past and you'd have to be a fool to continue believing in it today.

 

[Thalassa]

What I tend to wonder is if there would be so many creepy sexual attitudes between men and women if they were not so segregated and differentiated from each other.

From parts of the world where ultra-orthodox Muslims are abundant, women have reported experiences of being very unsubtly gawked at for having uncovered hair, calves, or elbows. Clearly, men the world over do not necessarily uncontrollably perv on random women with exposed calves. It would appear to be a byproduct of the local culture's mores against such exposure.

So the question is, if in attempting to avoid those creepy situations, one actually capitulates to them, and preserves their existence forever. In some of the concerns being raised about unisex bathrooms, are people effectively saying "it would be so creepy, maybe even dangerous, for women to stop covering themselves. I don't think we should do it"?




I see it exactly the other way around. If I were to change bathrooms for only one age group, I'd change it for children. Children are not (generally) sexually active or even sexually differentiated enough for it to produce as much friction, and the younger you desegregate people, the more stupid, stereotypical ideals you prevent.

Because for 70-80 percent of so called "Trans children" feelings fade, and it's not a decision that should be made for a minor whose brain and body is developing. Also, by "children" I especially include pubescent girls and boys, for what I think would be obvious reasons - but from everything I've gathered, you were extensively home schooled, so how would you have a sense of what it's like to experience an institution of a public school locker room, unless you have children or are a teacher, which you don't and aren't.

I'm not knocking you as an individual, but I think a lot of answers people give are ironically very "me" centric, and aren't taking into consideration other scenarios or socio-economic classes. This is not like being homosexual, which are private feelings which may manifest in a mutually agreed upon relationship. These are people of the opposite biological sex claiming it's their right, quite suddenly, to intrude upon the other.

Unisex single bathrooms are fine, but this gets messy with multi stalls and locker rooms.

I mean I'm just picturing this going down too in a mall, with a huge line, a bunch of fearful traditional conservative women waiting in line with their daughters when someone who is obviously biologically male shows up. I thought this was the kind of embarrassing situation or harassment Trans people want to avoid, not exacerbate.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Because for 70-80 percent of so called "Trans children" feelings fade, and it's not a decision that should be made for a minor whose brain and body is developing.

This appears to be a non-sequitur.

If there were nothing but unisex bathrooms, there'd be nothing "trans" about boys or girls going to these bathrooms, because it would be the only bathroom you could go to, and it wouldn't be gendered. So you wouldn't have an reason to worry (supposing your worries are even justified) about the existence and use of trans bathrooms encouraging a misguided, passing trans feeling in children. And unless it isn't clear, I think the reasons for having unisex bathrooms is way bigger than just accommodating trans people. That's like a bonus. I imagine a lot of trans people would rather just wish they could go to the restroom of of the gender their feel themselves to be.

Also, by "children" I especially include pubescent girls and boys, for what I think would be obvious reasons

It could be an issue. However, I suspect that the earlier kids start having unsegregated environments, the less weird they'll act when this time comes.

- but from everything I've gathered, you were extensively home schooled, so how would you have a sense of what it's like to experience an institution of a public school locker room, unless you have children or are a teacher, which you don't and aren't.

You might as well be saying that I do not know people at all, and you do.

Actually when I was a boy, but had long hair and liked to wear flip flops, I hated every single time I had to use a public restroom and I came to dread it, because I knew that any time I went into everyone would read me as a girl and wonder what the hell I was doing, and it was palpably uncomfortable. So, in a sense, I know how it feels to be uncomfortable over gender issues in public bathrooms actually.

I'm not knocking you as an individual, but I think a lot of answers people give are ironically very "me" centric, and aren't taking into consideration other scenarios or socio-economic classes.

Other classes? What do you mean? Rich people? You know I was from a totally blue collar background, right?

This is not like being homosexual, which are private feelings which may manifest in a mutually agreed upon relationship. These are people of the opposite biological sex claiming it's their right, quite suddenly, to intrude upon the other.

It is no more necessary for this to be an intrusion than it is to for any other space shared by males and females to be considered an intrusion.

Unisex single bathrooms are fine, but this gets messy with multi stalls and locker rooms.

I mean I'm just picturing this going down too in a mall, with a huge line, a bunch of fearful traditional conservative women waiting in line with their daughters when someone who is obviously biologically male shows up. I thought this was the kind of embarrassing situation or harassment Trans people want to avoid, not exacerbate.

Why should I care about that? I don't think those women have justification, and with sufficient cultural changes, they will eventually cease to exist.

And a trans person merely being present, prompting some other people to get anxious about it, is not harassment on the part of the trans person.

 

[Thalassa]

This appears to be a non-sequitur.

If there were nothing but unisex bathrooms, there'd be nothing "trans" about boys or girls going to these bathrooms, because it would be the only bathroom you could go to, and it wouldn't be gendered. So you wouldn't have an reason to worry (supposing your worries are even justified) about the existence and use of trans bathrooms encouraging a misguided, passing trans feeling in children. And unless it isn't clear, I think the reasons for having unisex bathrooms is way bigger than just accommodating trans people. That's like a bonus. I imagine a lot of trans people would rather just wish they could go to the restroom of of the gender their feel themselves to be.



It could be an issue. However, I suspect that the earlier kids start having unsegregated environments, the less weird they'll act when this time comes.




You might as well be saying that I do not know people at all, and you do.

Actually when I was a boy, but had long hair and liked to wear flip flops, I hated every single time I had to use a public restroom and I came to dread it, because I knew that any time I went into everyone would read me as a girl and wonder what the hell I was doing, and it was palpably uncomfortable. So, in a sense, I know how it feels to be uncomfortable over gender issues in public bathrooms actually.



Other classes? What do you mean? Rich people? You know I was from a totally blue collar background, right?



It is no more necessary for this to be an intrusion than it is to for any other space shared by males and females to be considered an intrusion.



Why should I care about that? I don't think those women have justification, and with sufficient cultural changes, they will eventually cease to exist.

And a trans person merely being present, prompting some other people to get anxious about it, is not harassment on the part of the trans person.

Oh boy. I went a unisex bathroom in my class room in elementary school, because I lived out not quite but close enough to have the best of both worlds to the sticks in West Virginia. Only one person could go at a time. A green or red flipping sign let one know the bathroom was empty. I'm pretty sure this did absolutely nothing in the shaping of gender roles in that elementary school, which had likely been there since the 50s or 60s.

Just because you raise children going to a single person unisex bathroom (like at home or in a small town class room) doesn't erase overall socialization, nor does it change biology. Nobody should have to go through puberty, but ah, there it is all the same.

Just because you're working class doesn't mean you went to an underfunded inner city public school, nor does it mean you ever went through puberty in a public school locker room.

Bathrooms and changing areas are much more private areas than other areas men and women share. It especially annoys me when biological males overlook this. It's largely a problem with to the women, less so to the men unless there are aggressive gays present.

It also occurs to me that a Trans man who is still biologically female is in much more danger in a men's room than a woman's room, and that the perception of danger is also stronger with women around a Trans woman who is still male. The only friend/acquaintance on my FB page from North Carolina I saw congratulating their state government was a conservative woman who has a daughter. I don't think it's okay to downplay these things as invalid any more than the feelings of fear some Trans people feel.

 

[Crabs]

I appreciate your clarification; it was useful and has made me re-think. Of course, most women don't wear tight pants to the restroom so why did you bring it up as a supposedly relevant example about restrooms and locker rooms? No one exercises in the locker room; they do it in the gym proper. I don't appreciate your inaccurate tu quoque.

If you don't wish me to engage you, then don't engage me. This is not a one-way street.

Really? All the women wearing stretch pants don't wear them to the restroom? You know what? I don't even care what you mean by that or what you're trying to say. You made an absurd claim about me and I responded with a rebuttal, but honestly, I have no interest in communicating with you. I've made a point of not responding to your posts in the forum (which aren't directed at me) and would rather you not make any further comments toward me in the future.

Also, this is the second time you've misused tu quoque. Put it to rest.

 

[Rambling]

No, we shouldn't.

 

[cascadeco]

What I tend to wonder is if there would be so many creepy sexual attitudes between men and women if they were not so segregated and differentiated from each other.

From parts of the world where ultra-orthodox Muslims are abundant, women have reported experiences of being very unsubtly gawked at for having uncovered hair, calves, or elbows. Clearly, men the world over do not necessarily uncontrollably perv on random women with exposed calves. It would appear to be a byproduct of the local culture's mores against such exposure.

So the question is, if in attempting to avoid those creepy situations, one actually capitulates to them, and preserves their existence forever. In some of the concerns being raised about unisex bathrooms, are people effectively saying "it would be so creepy, maybe even dangerous, for women to stop covering themselves. I don't think we should do it"?




I see it exactly the other way around. If I were to change bathrooms for only one age group, I'd change it for children. Children are not (generally) sexually active or even sexually differentiated enough for it to produce as much friction, and the younger you desegregate people, the more stupid, stereotypical ideals you prevent.

I think sure, there's a social conditioning element to these things. Unisex at a young age could be fine/ a non-issue. I mean, even in family households, very young siblings might bathe together or kids run around naked, it's not a big deal. But I think there's usually been a dividing line at a certain point. I mean, the minute puberty begins hitting in kids, in late elementary, social dynamics begin to change, cliques begin to form, boys and girls begin looking at each other differently. Biology is a powerful thing, and even if little kids grew up in unisex conditions, I really don't think it's going to seamlessly transfer into unisex pre teens, teens, and adults - at least in the modern world and modern culture we have.

It seems like the only case where more exposure across all ages occurs is in more primitive type cultures that continue living as they have for ages - certain african tribes, certain indiginous peoples in the Amazon, etc. But it would be worth looking into the details of that- ie how young do the women marry? Is it still quite segregated in most respects, it's just more skin is acceptable? They have entirely different lives and social structures.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Substantive gender equality is not possible with segregation based on distinctions of gender.

If total substantive equality between all expressions of gender is viable (because the underlying biological sex is not a distinguishing factor in the expression of gender), is its own separate discussion on the limits of cultural plasticity. It might not be obvious to a lot of people, but this is the most basic version of the same kind of discrimination that is meted out in the selection process of who gets to gain access to an exclusively permissive night club: comparative worth between differing expressions of Gender- is something that can be eliminated (as a social theme) by fostering values of tolerance and the unveiling of all biological illusions. Removing culturally manufactured illusions around gender will radically re-order power relations, and at the same time shift power to new and different elements than under the old system of our culturally produced gender-value-game.

Most people only have their opinion because of the how that cultural game frames their current (engendered) powers and real interests.

These things are in control of us, until we decide to control them by joint effort and conscious agreements in the coordination of a new culture. Culture as a subject for human choices, and not merely an object from the byproducts of human wills, unconsciously brought to bear on us all- through having inherited it from our environmental impressionability: is the defaulting-choice of an abandoned liberty.

 

[Cowardly]

As a woman, I would feel pretty uncomfortable getting dressed in front of a bunch of strange men in a closed room.

It's much worse for a guy to change in front of a girl. Especially if he's shy and has a boner.

That's pretty much the recurring nightmare I had in middle school.

I find it distracting enough to have women in skin tight pants at the gym bending over and spreading their legs in various exercises when I'm trying to concentrate on my workout.

I find it nice.

Yes, and fill them with cubicles

Exactly.

 

[Cowardly]

Unisex locker rooms are a bad idea in current culture in social situations where the people aren't nudists. I think it's also completely unethical and impractical in middle/high schools. If private businesses want this, good for them, but some people will complain about cost or space waste for a third locker room.

What's the problem with cubicles?

This is why people are a bit overwhelmed or skeptical about this whole business. It's like, no I don't hate Trans people, I may even like them (depending on who "I" am) but why does this have to be foisted on children and there are space and monetary costs to consider.

Well some children are also affected negatively by it. And the monetary costs would have to be considered separately in order to find the best solution. I believe the important part is to decide how bathrooms are going to be made in the future, instead of trying to change everything at once. Though we should definitely change in the places that can afford it, since those places usually welcome more trans people anyway. I'm talking malls, universities, govt facilities, etc.

I have used men's rooms before when they were totally individual like in a fast food restaurant, and I'm totally OK with anyone doing that, since nobody in there with you anyway...but honestly men's rooms stink, they have a different pheromone odor to their urine, and I've heard men complain about the smell of blood in women's rest rooms.

No one likes public bathrooms, honestly. They're the epitome of gross.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Oh boy. I went a unisex bathroom in my class room in elementary school, because I lived out not quite but close enough to have the best of both worlds to the sticks in West Virginia. Only one person could go at a time. A green or red flipping sign let one know the bathroom was empty. I'm pretty sure this did absolutely nothing in the shaping of gender roles in that elementary school, which had likely been there since the 50s or 60s.

The bold pretty much makes this irrelevant. Lots of bathrooms like that exist all over the place, and they are not controversy. Nobody is debating such a bathroom, it wouldn't be logistically sufficient besides, and the lack of exposure it creates would have (and has had) no impact on gendering.

Just because you raise children going to a single person unisex bathroom (like at home or in a small town class room) doesn't erase overall socialization, nor does it change biology. Nobody should have to go through puberty, but ah, there it is all the same.

Well if you're talking about bathrooms as I actually meant, and not one where only one person goes in at a time, it would have some impact. Of course it would not change it completely. But it would be stupid to recommend no changes because no single change would be 100%. So unless you have a suggestion about the exact order in which you would desegregate gender and what you'd get around to before unisex bathrooms, I don't see anything to talk about that.

And just using the word biology doesn't amount to an argument, people. Every time someone says biology, I will now just say "yeah, well, culture", and leave it at that, because it's just as compelling an argument.

Just because you're working class doesn't mean you went to an underfunded inner city public school, nor does it mean you ever went through puberty in a public school locker room.

Okay. It just seemed kind of unrelated here.

Bathrooms and changing areas are much more private areas than other areas men and women share. It especially annoys me when biological males overlook this. It's largely a problem with to the women, less so to the men unless there are aggressive gays present.

That's pretty much up to us. Privacy definitely something that has had not consistent boundaries across human culture. We can change what we consider more or less private. This goes back to the point about norms in other parts of the world. In a place where women are expected to wear hijabs, then only non-public contexts where a woman is either alone or only in the presence of women can she go without one and leave her hair visible. It would be improper for men to see that, you know?

I mean, in a sense, a bathroom already is a private place. It's certainly treated as one in person homes. And yet, when I go to a public place, I usually have to use a communal bathroom with a ton of guys in it. That's not terribly private, now is it? Because of course its not about privacy in general, it's about gender. It's about the idea that it would be improper for men and women to be in the same place for this purpose, the same way it would be improper for a woman to let any man other than her husband see her head uncovered. It is quite changeable.

It also occurs to me that a Trans man who is still biologically female is in much more danger in a men's room than a woman's room, and that the perception of danger is also stronger with women around a Trans woman who is still male.

That fear might be misplaced. Especially considering that trans women have been assaulted in both restrooms.

The only friend/acquaintance on my FB page from North Carolina I saw congratulating their state government was a conservative woman who has a daughter. I don't think it's okay to downplay these things as invalid any more than the feelings of fear some Trans people feel.

I have no probably downplaying fears of things that aren't serious threats. I mock Americans afraid of terrorists, and I'll mock this too.

I think sure, there's a social conditioning element to these things. Unisex at a young age could be fine/ a non-issue. I mean, even in family households, very young siblings might bathe together or kids run around naked, it's not a big deal. But I think there's usually been a dividing line at a certain point. I mean, the minute puberty begins hitting in kids, in late elementary, social dynamics begin to change, cliques begin to form, boys and girls begin looking at each other differently.

That has more to do with difference between family and school than difference between age groups. Boys and girls are thoroughly encouraged to look at each other differently but the kinds of processes we are talking about, and family ties are really more of the exception that breaks those down (I notice a lot of guys hardly comprehend their mothers as women).

Biology is a powerful thing

Yeah, well, culture.

and even if little kids grew up in unisex conditions, I really don't think it's going to seamlessly transfer into unisex pre teens, teens, and adults - at least in the modern world and modern culture we have.

Our modern culture is shaped by decisions like whether or not we have unisex bathrooms. That's part of my point. You might be saying that we hold out until there is a change, while the thing we hold out on is a part of making that change happen. It's a catch 22, and we are stuck in one spot for eternity.

Actually, what it reminds me of a lot are debates about the military. Women serving, gay people serving, etc. A lot of arguments are made about how disruptive women could be, the arguments are even often framed as being protective, in the best interest of keeping women from being hurt. But it completely misses the point. There's no particularly good reason women should be at greater risk, and that's probably not going to change if our answer to the problem is to just avoid it.

It seems like the only case where more exposure across all ages occurs is in more primitive type cultures that continue living as they have for ages - certain african tribes, certain indiginous peoples in the Amazon, etc. But it would be worth looking into the details of that- ie how young do the women marry? Is it still quite segregated in most respects, it's just more skin is acceptable? They have entirely different lives and social structures.

Yes, they are so different it is hard to make a comparison. That is why I prefer comparisons to more similar societies, and that is why I compare to civilizations with stricter mores, among which there are probably many people who could not imagine being as lax about gender as we are, and would likely level the same arguments against become as lax.

 

[Zangetshumody]

It's much worse for a guy to change in front of a girl. Especially if he's shy and has a boner.

I say: bring it on;- this is the nexus scenario that has the potential to totally eradicate any trace of what the feminists now complain of as a "rape" culture.

Separating sexual desires and biological expressions of sexual feelings away from the expectations of a shared sexual/conjugal bonding/experience. This scenario is already a feature of socialization in terms of same gender relations, why not add all genders in with this phenomenon to render a more wholesome and mediated culture of shared experience.

Implicit in my thinking, is that this is the cure for [safely neutralizing all] "body issues", although it does spell out predicaments that under the old culture's game of gender value, would be unthinkable because of the body-issue baggage already inherited as an environmental imprint. Radical access to the truths of each biological sex is required to develop a deep maturity in order to cope with its stark realities: a maturity that is more easily adopted when the lesson can be underlined before it is experienced for the first time (although children are exceptionally good at learning from novel situations, until the programmed environmental matrix displaces their independent capacities). Obviously any place where maturity is required for society to function, where the culture is not already established for the bewildered herds of those already corrupted by stupefying doctrines of authority, which are considered to extend themselves over this world: presents a danger when mixing culturally insoluble elements with a new style of discerned consciousness and operation.

In most cases the younger generation can grow sentiments which are vastly more mature than their elders, for which they will be traumatized for not conforming to the already established prejudice held by the broadest-common-denominator. I'm only pointing this out as a caveat for those who wish to engage creatively in a way that can dislodge action from the ideological schism of ignoring pragmatism (which is something you can see a lot of "lib-tard" ,"3rd and 3.5wave feminists" flailing wherewith the delinquency of).

 

[Masokissed]

It would be easier to know what someone's sexuality is in a unisex locker room.

 

[Cowardly]

It would be easier to know what someone's sexuality is in a unisex locker room.

Follow the eyes.

I say: bring it on;- this is the nexus scenario that has the potential to totally eradicate any trace of what the feminists now complain of as a "rape" culture.

Separating sexual desires and biological expressions of sexual feelings away from the expectations of a shared sexual/conjugal bond/experience. This scenario is already a feature of socialization in terms of same gender relations, why not add all genders in with this phenomenon to render a more wholesome and mediated culture of shared experience.

Implicit in my thinking, is that this is the cure for [safely neutralizing all] "body issues", although it does spell out predicaments that under the old culture's game of gender value, would be unthinkable because of the body-issue baggage already inherited as an environmental imprint. Radical access to the truths of each biological sex is required to develop a deep maturity in order to cope with its stark realities: a maturity that is more easily adopted when the lesson can be underlined before it is experienced for the first time (although children are exceptionally good at learning from novel situations, until the programmed environmental matrix displaces their independent capacities). Obviously any place where maturity is required for society to function, where the culture is not already established for the bewildered herds of those already corrupted by stupefying doctrines of authority, which are considered to extend themselves over this world: presents a danger when mixing culturally insoluble elements with a new style of discerned consciousness and operation.

In most cases the younger generation can grow sentiments which are vastly more mature than their elders, for which they will be traumatized for not conforming to the already established prejudice held by the broadest-common-denominator. I'm only pointing this out as a caveat for those who wish to engage creatively in a way that can dislodge action from the ideological schism of ignoring pragmatism (which is something you can see a lot of "lib-tard" ,"3rd and 3.5wave feminists" flailing wherewith the delinquency of).

I agree that it would neutralize body issues, for most people at least. I'm not sure about the second paragraph. Those feelings will still be there, they're not felt by people of the same gender because supposedly most people aren't attracted to the same gender. Evidence to this is the discomfort felt by those who actually are attracted to their peers. It makes things awkward for them.

I'd support it if I didn't abhor the idea of changing in front of other people.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I agree that it would neutralize body issues, for most people at least. I'm not sure about the second paragraph. Those feelings will still be there, they're not felt by people of the same gender because supposedly most people aren't attracted to the same gender. Evidence to this is the discomfort felt by those who actually are attracted to their peers. It makes things awkward for them.

I'd support it if I didn't abhor the idea of changing in front of other people.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to by "those feelings"?

I think I can give you a response about the rest of your sentiment: I believe that 'discomfort' felt because of co-mingling with the politics of attraction involved, is a part of our culture that desperately needs mediating and more extensive development, and although I have not identified the specific workings of how such a maturity would develop in a culture where this was experiencialy shared by its members, I do think this type of experience could find the answers to a lot of issues around:

values that produce successful relationships between peers.
values surrounding the issues of self-validation in the context of sexual-competition (which when you try to sideline and whitewash from a culture, produces the worst kind of silent-establishment of a value-laden-hierarchy: that can't be overcome by any means of engaged address to that underlying situation: which can only accessed from offering direct challenge to those [imprinted] constructs of social-value).
To offer some kind of illustration of both of these topics: I would point to phenomena where peer-based relationships offer the best models of interdependence, as a framework conducive for generating homogeneous values that don't veer into mutually destructive divergences: but these sorts of relationships don't fit into the most venerated or common relationship tropes- if anything, they are too mundane to foster or cultivate because of the pressure offered by more alluring relationship dynamics which are inherently scarce (and usually have some degree of costliness or riskiness- even if that cost or risk is secondary: the fear of losing access to some scarce [and valuable] quality). Largely the value attached to scarcity is manufactured by its projected qualities when those qualities are kept hidden:
And now we seem to be at the crossroads of quite a dilemma-
Can culture support a masculine identity that can fully weather social and biological factors 'he' could attend to and must contend with, to avoid establishing a patriarchal edifice of security- bought from the arbitrary limitations put onto cultural themes of 'conventional' co-ordination ('arbitrary' when surveyed within the feminine treatment of the same social factors)(post script: the youtube video I refer to later cites an "in group", such a construct is the basis for discarding a measure of potential in expressible liberty, to access a measure of some appearance of security (which only offers a facade to use through a default conventionality, that must either be diffused by intoxicating substances, or some form of ambiance conducive to a self-imposed-extradition, in order to forge genuine sentiments not dressed-up by the facade's judgements on fashionability:- which displaces an articulation of authentic sensibility (and dislocates people from an internal reliance upon an immediate sense of engaging your own intelligence to the consideration of perceptions)).

To reduce this into some semblance of relevance to what you originally put to me: (and I know this only illustrates partially what I'm trying to discuss here)- Is the boy anxious because the girl he likes will get a preview of (a vaster sense of) his social-value, before he has managed to design some way of surmounting the vulnerability that presents itself as an (comparatively) unfavorable social-value. Social-value is constructed from operative themes (or patterns) noticed as a latent dimension to behaviors, and it can mean a great deal for an individual to endure a social-value which is based in erroneous thinking; inversely, the unfairness of a comfort visited upon a select, is not grounds for self-pity or vainglory: and the indulgence of either is a short-lived 'cult of decadence': which can only be prolonged by dredging further in the illusory space created by keeping the consideration of qualities hidden, from confidently making assessments- for a full knowledge on the matters involved (which also include internal cognaziances with regard to the external matter of some social-mechanic).

On these grounds, woman do have an inherently easier time- I might aswell just post this youtube video because it contains some of those factors, which I would underline with a different contextual emphasis (while ignoring some the moral narrative in this youtube videos's setup, also because his narrative doesn't include the focus on McLuhan factors on the developments in the progression of cultural evolution):

let me see if I can condense this argument into multimedia:

Sociologically speaking, economic 'reality' is more important from the masculine identity perspective- because:
-when finally resolved;- would mean reducing the field upon which a man could make himself indispensable to a woman; because biologically, men have a proven history of being far more proportionately dispensed-with; whereas it has been proven that woman have been treated to a far greater rate of indispensability (60% of all men descended from our human ancestors, did NOT father children, as opposed to 20% of woman who did NOT mother any children). And I'll just leave this youtube video here for some further facts on biological factors (I'm not sure about all the conclusions that are cited in these videos on sociological matters, but the biological information is quite interesting). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwzvqL0TxEQ

My further discussion on my last point with the treatments of indispensability:
Because of how systems of power and the pattern to which power can be correlated with, have a larger potential imprint factor on the mind, as an environmental temptation: its easier to fall victim to the narrative of how men- must try to distinguish themselves fervently in order to "win" affections and attention, failing to distinguish himself on the grounds of doing something that offers a proof of mastery, or taking great risks for novel rewards, brings on pressured feelings due to the looming threat of being dispensed-with, in fulfillment of some objective sense : that has supposedly been deselected in all his inherited and 'collective' experiences of masculinity (by the culture he inherits, with it's language that endures with all its social-DNA inbuilt within it) toward making some distinction between him and the other 60% of the 'tribesmen'. Are the kinds of conditions that can only be remedied by getting to the point where culture is malleable to the individual, through the conduit of homogeneous values that can only ever open themselves to adaption after they are taken entirely for how they present themselves, which can only occur with a bedrock of truth- to hopefully produce the edifice for moving onto having itself adapted liberally as knowledge is expanded to create a further potential whereto express liberty.

When reality is mundane, novelty is to decide a chosen adaption with reality. When reality contains the novelty, decisions are mundane unless they are choosing to slavishly accord with the novelty which "reality" is then containing the source of (by your style of chosen acquiescence to the "reality"). So therefore;- help the world become more mundane. This is my answer to SHOULD unisex locker/bathrooms be a thing. Obviously pragmatic considerations of HOW WOULD it be a real thing, is a vastly more specialized kettle of fish per the local offering of implementation.