Mary Ann Case writes (p 222-223): This is only one of many reasons I am inclined
Mary Ann Case writes (p 222-223): This is only one of many reasons I am inclined to question those who rest their claim that separate but equal—an unacceptable solution for race segregation in toilets—might work for sex segregation on the assumption that sex-segregated toilets play a completely “different role in our culture than did racially segregated ones.”27 The philosopher Richard Wasserstrom, for example, in an important early article comparing race and sex discrimination, insists that, whereas racially segregated toilets were connected to an “ideology of racial taint” which held that blacks were “dirty and impure” and should not be permitted to “contaminate bathrooms used by whites,” the ideology behind sexually segregated bathrooms contains “no notion of the possibility of contamination or even directly of inferiority or superiority” but merely a need to maintain “that same sense of mystery…about the other sex’s sexuality which is fostered by the general prohibition on public nudity.28 Do parts of sex segregation mirror the problems with a separate-but-equal framework for race segregation? How should we think about potential relationship/s or comparisons between forms of sex and race segregation?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *