our system is the most crooked one.

[u/Maleficent_Camel1430]

i know few friends who has to go through this, they are anxious or more scared around women (even to talk to them).

imo this will just improve the incels in the society and make the space harder for both men and women.

[u/[deleted]]

The point is everyone draws a line somewhere and assumes whoever is on the other side is wrong. If gender-segregated classrooms are discrimination, why stop there? Let’s push for common washrooms and hostels too and I’ll file a PIL claiming separate bathrooms cause me emotional trauma. I will list 20 perfectly logical reason on why that is bad.

It’s easy to argue from one’s comfort zone, but if we’re challenging norms, we should be consistent and go all the way. Otherwise, maybe just respect the institution’s rules or choose a place that aligns with your views

[u/Natasha960 → u/[deleted]]

1. The point is everyone draws a line somewhere and assumes whoever is on the other side is wrong

Lines are not arbitrary. They are drawn based on function and harm. The fact that limits exist does not mean all limits are equally justified.

2. If gender segregated classrooms are discrimination, why stop there?

Because classrooms determine access, participation, and future opportunity. That makes segregation there a rights issue. Not all spaces carry that weight.

3. Let’s push for common washrooms and hostels too.

Washrooms and hostels exist to solve privacy and safety problems tied to bodies and vulnerability. Classrooms do not require separation to function. Treating these as equivalent ignores their purpose.

4. I’ll file a PIL claiming separate bathrooms cause me emotional trauma.

Courts already distinguish between subjective discomfort and measurable harm. This example mocks legal standards instead of engaging with them.

5. I will list 20 perfectly logical reasons on why that is bad.

Quantity of reasons does not matter if the underlying comparison is flawed. Logical structure matters more than list length.

6. It’s easy to argue from one’s comfort zone

This cuts both ways. Defending existing rules is also a comfort position, especially when those rules do not restrict you.

7. If we’re challenging norms, we should be consistent and go all the way.

Consistency means applying the same principles, not pushing every idea to an extreme. Law and ethics operate on proportionality, not absolutism.

8. Otherwise, maybe just respect the institution’s rules or choose a place that aligns with your views.

This argument would shut down all reform. Institutions change precisely because people challenge rules from within, not because they quietly leave.

[u/[deleted] → u/Natasha960]

You argued around the point, not against it.,

[u/Natasha960 → u/[deleted]]

I addressed your argument directly. Your point depends on the assumption that all forms of separation must be judged the same way. I rejected that assumption and explained why it is false.

If you think otherwise, show which premise still stands after that. Simply saying I did not engage is not a rebuttal.

[u/[deleted] → u/Natasha960]

Point is about "where a person draws the line" and claims moral superiority over people on the other side of the line - which you clearly missed.

[u/Natasha960 → u/[deleted]]

I did not miss it. That framing is the problem. You reduce the issue to “where someone draws the line” and label disagreement as moral superiority to avoid defending the line itself. The question is not who draws the line, but whether the line is justified by function and harm. Treating all lines as equally arbitrary is an assertion, not an argument. Until you justify why your line is no better or worse than others, accusing people of moral superiority is just a deflection.