About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


37 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 227 (2018-2019)
Sexism in the Bathroom Debates: How Bathrooms Really Became Separated by Sex

handle is hein.journals/yalpr37 and id is 239 raw text is: YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Sexism in the Bathroom Debates: How Bathrooms Really Became Separated by Sex W Burlette Carter* This Article challenges two widely-embraced theories about how public intimate spaces (e.g, toilets, locker rooms, showers, etc. hereinafter called bathrooms') first became separated by sex. The first challenged theory claims that the very first instance of sex-separation in public bathrooms occurred in 1739 at a ball held at a restaurant in Paris. Under this first view, sex-separation first emerged as a sign of upper-class gentility and elitism. The second challenged theory argues that a consistent practice of differentiating bathrooms by sex did not emerge until the late nineteenth century. According to this view, bathroom sex- separation was imposed when authorities overreacted to the notion of the intermingling of the sexes as women entered the workplace during the Industrial Revolution. Thus, the second view holds that bathroom sex- separation is rooted in sexism, paternalism, and outdated Victorian notions ofmodesty This Article argues that both of these theories are wrong. With respect to the first theory, the author's research indicates that the ball in question was not at a restaurant It was an invitation-only royal masquerade ball for some 14,000 people. It was hosted by King Louis XV at the Hotel de Ville in Paris to celebrate his daughter's wedding. Moreover, it was not the first instance of sex-separation in bathrooms. That ball may, however, evidence an attempt to extend heterosexually-centered bathroom norms into spaces like the masquerades. The author argues that the masquerades *@W. Burlette Carter, Professor Emeritus, The George Washington University Law School; J.D., Harvard Law School; B.A. Agnes Scott College. I thank former students Priom Ahmed, Halcyon Apy, Rebecca Krishnan-Ayer, Christopher Pefia, and Joseph Turman for their thoughtful contributions to this work. I also thank the editors of the Yale Law & PolicyReviewfor their efforts. The views and claims expressed herein are solely my own. 227