ESTABLISHMENTS SHOULD HAVE

EXCLUSIVE RESTROOMS FOR LGBTQ+?

“We should indeed keep calm in the face of difference, and live our lives in a
state of inclusion and wonder at the diversity of humanity.”
-GEORGE TAKEI-

A pleasant afternoon, your honor, to the opposing counsel, to our audience and
to my co-member good afternoon.
Restrooms is defined as generally used for public spaces, available for use by the
general public, customers, travelers, employees of business, school pupils and etc.
LGBTQ+ is an initialism that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer. It
is an umbrella term for use when labelling topics pertaining to sexuality and gender
identity. It is intended to emphasized diversity of sexuality and gender based cultures.
The heart of the issue pertains to rights in general of LGBTQ+. Before turning to the
governing principles and precedents, it is appropriate to note the history of the subject
now before the floor.
The history of persistent societal disapproval for homosexual conduct, and perhaps
homosexual themselves, marks the beginning of these issue. To the opposing
counsels, it would demean a timeless virtue of morality relying on religious justification.
On the part of the LGBTQ+, far from seeking to devalue immorality, seek it for
themselves because of their respect to the moral fabric of society.
The history of LGBTQ+ rights is one of both continuity and change. Change, such as
the advancement of civil rights, abolition of apartheid system, have worked deep
transformation in our society. This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experience
with gay and lesbian rights. Well into the 20th Century, many countries condemned
same sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. Later in
the century, cultural and political developments allowed homosexuals to lead more
open and public lives.
Given the foregoing antecedents, the inevitable issue has now been raised, whether
or not We the affirmative side would like to express the following points with regards
to the topic “Establishments should have exclusive restrooms for LGBTQ+”.
In this juncture, we in the affirmative side would like to raise the following contentions:
1. TO HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE AND GENDER NEUTRAL RESTROOMS FOR
LGBTQ+ IS A RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH RESTROOM FOR LGBTQ+ IS NEITHER
DISCRIMINATORY NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE LGBTQ+.
 3. TO ESTABLISH AN EXCLUSIVE AND GENDER NEUTRAL RESTROOMS
FOR LGBTQ+ IS NEITHER CONTRARY TO LAW, MORALS, CUSTOMS
PUBLIC ORDER AND PUBLIC POLICY.
The First point is that:
I. TO HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE AND GENDER NEUTRAL RESTROOMS FOR
LGBTQ+ IS A RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
 TO HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE RESTROOMS FOR LGBTQ+ IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT IS GUARANTEED.

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that
include certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm,
to define and express their identity.

The guiding principle, as expressly stated in the Constitution, is that “The

state values dignity of every person and guarantees full respect for
human rights.” The same Constitution provides that “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of the law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection
of the laws.

The equal protection clause guarantees that no person or class of

persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is
enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances. From this standpoint, the members of the third sex have
the same interest on the same basis to other gender.

Fundamental liberties are enshrined in our Bill of Rights, which extends

to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy
including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. Thus,
it is in this context that we strongly affirm that absence of restrooms for
LGBTQ+ would constitute deprivation of their constitutionally
guaranteed right.

Article II, Section 11 “The state values dignity of every person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.

Most people take reasonable access to restroom facilities for granted.

However, LGBTQ+ often face the burden of being confronted or
questioned about which genders’ restroom they should use. Not having
reasonable access to restrooms is a tremendous distraction that the
LGBTQ+ have been experiencing every now and then.
The Second point is that:
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH RESTROOM FOR LGBTQ+ IS NEITHER
DISCRIMINATORY NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE LGBTQ+.
 ESTABLISHMENT OF RESTROOM FOR LGBTQ+ IS NOT
DISCRIMINATORY RATHER THAN A RECOGNITION OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

We disagree on the contention that the establishment of restroom is an

act of discrimination towards the members of the LGBTQ+. The same
merely demanded that it be recognized under the same basis as all other
gender groups.

For an instance, may a lesbian, who expressed himself as male and is

not masculine enough in appearance, be prevented in using a male
restroom, hence, used the female one on the basis of appearance? The
case would be more absurd for a straight female who may not be
feminine enough in appearance.

Hence, an exclusive and gender neutral restroom would prevent the

foregoing situation. Most people whether transgender, cisgender or
another gender, simply wish to use the restroom in peace and leave. The
interest of different sexual orientations will be served best through the
establishment of such restrooms.

Section 3 of Republic Act 9710 (Magna Carta for Women) “All individuals
are equal as human beings by virtue of the inherent dignity of each
human person. No one should therefore suffer discrimination on the
basis of ethnicity, gender, age, language, sexual orientation, race, color,
religion, political or other opinion, national, social or geographical origin,
disability, property, birth or other status as established by human rights
standards.

For an instance, so, do people who are not transgender but whom others
believe, don’t look masculine or feminine enough for the restroom they’re
in? Most people whether transgender, cisgender or another gender,
simply wish to use the restroom in peace and leave.

III. TO ESTABLISH AN EXCLUSIVE RESTROOM FOR LGBTQ+ IS NEITHER

CONTRARY TO LAW, MORALS, CUSTOMS PUBLIC ORDER AND PUBLIC
POLICY.
The affirmative side would like to emphasize that No law exists to
criminalize homosexual behavior or expressions or parties about
homosexual behavior. Homosexuality per se, is not illicit. Given the
absence of any express provision, it follows that the establishment of a
restroom for LGBTQ+ are well protected under our law.

Nonetheless, we are not blind to the fact of censure of the issue on the
ground of religious belief, personal convictions, and their perceived
lifestyle. To this we respond as follows:

The government reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with its

policy of neutrality. As declared by Justice Carpio, " if government relies
upon religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals, the
resulting policies and morals would require conformity to what some
might regard as religious programs or agenda. As a result, government
will not provide full religious freedom for all its citizens, or even make it
appear that those whose beliefs are disapproved are second-class
citizens.” The Solicitor-General, on the other hand, posits that a person
may be sexually attracted to a person of the same gender, of a different
gender, or more than one gender, but mere attraction does not translate
to immoral acts

We cannot deny therefore that the establishment of exclusive and

gender neutral restrooms for the LGBTQ+ is neither contrary to to law,
morals, customs public order and public policy. Many LGBTQ+ members
who are perceived as gender non-conforming must think every day
about whether they have access to a safe restroom at work, in schools,
coffee shops and any establishments when they are out in the
community or travelling elsewhere and generally where they are outside
of their homes.
Remember that many people value privacy and one of them are the
LGBTQ+ community.
Ladies and gentlemen, it just shows that there is indeed a need to have
establishments to have exclusive restrooms for LGBTQ+.
Ladies and Gentlemen, given the constitutionality and legal basis for the establishment
of exclusive and gender restroom, the affirmative side further contends the following:
1. ESTABLISHMENT OF RESTROOMS EXCLUSIVE TO EVERYONE
PRESERVE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE.
2. RESTROOM EXCLUSIVE TO EVERYONE WILL DETER CRIMES SUCH
AS HARASSMENT, UNJUST VEXATION, AND VOYEURISM.

I. ESTABLISHMENT OF RESTROOMS EXCLUSIVE TO EVERYONE

PRESERVE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
It is simple biology that a person, irrespective of gender goes to restroom to relieve
himself of his bodily needs. Currently, restrooms available for use in many
establishments are categorized for three users only- for men, women and PWD’s.
These categorization of restrooms emanates from the purpose of convenience that
best serve the needs of its user.
However, in the advent of time, the third sex community also known as the
LGBTQ+ emerging and undeniably exists. They are those who express or identify
themselves opposite or other than their biological sex.
Being a minority group, members of such community often experience
discrimination, harassment and unjust vexation, originating mainly, among others,
from the burden of being confronted about which gender’s rest room they should
take.
This was the case of Gretchen Diez, a transwoman who was just about to use the
women’s comfort room, in a shopping mall in Quezon City. On the basis of her
gender expression got discriminated and was unjustly vexed by the employee of
the establishment. Rather than allowing her use the ladies restroom, she was told
to use the men’s and PWD’s which in her part a deprivation of her gender
expression. For her, using men’s CR will only cause her discomfort and might
actually cause her harassed and even more discriminated.
However, we do not discount the inconvenience cause on the other sexual
orientation. On the part of women using the female comfort room, the presence of
Diez gives them discomfort as Diez for them is a man. On the part of men, the
presence of Diez may deprive them their right of privacy, and may violate their
honor and chastity.
Needless to say, Diez is not PWD herself so using PWD’s CR may be prejudicial,
if not discriminatory on the part of Diez. Given the foregoing, Diez’s right to express
herself was violated and was left with no choice.
Now, the question is raised, is it therefore necessary to establish exclusive
restrooms for such community? For public convenience, yes. Establishments of
restrooms exclusive to everyone’s access is the solution to prevent more of
Gretchen Diez. By this, no more gender- based awkward feeling in comfort rooms.
Removing the sexist label of the comfort room will truly give comfort to the public.
 II. RESTROOM EXCLUSIVE TO EVERYONE WILL DETER CRIMES SUCH
AS HARASSMENT, UNJUST VEXATION, AND VOYEURISM.
Harassment is the act of systematic and or continued unwanted annoying actions of
one party or a group including threats or demands.
Unjust Vexation refers to any person who commits course of conduct directed at
specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves
no legitimate purpose.
Voyeurism is a person who for the purpose of obtaining sexual arousal or sexual
gratification, observes a person who is engaged in a private act without the consent of
the person being observed.
All of the foregoing acts may be present if the issue is left without resolution. With the
emerging LGBTQ+ sector, the present setup of maintaining restrooms categorized for
men, women and PWD’s may prove the stability of public order.
As illustrated in the case of Diez, her mere presence incites unjust vexation on the part
of women using the female restroom. This in turn caused undue harassment of Diez,
in addition to the discriminatory act of compelling her to use the restroom for PWD.
The case would be more ridiculous if Diez be compeled to use the male restroom
notwithstanding his feminine appearance. Men may also be unjustly vexed in the same
manner as women do.
The present situation may also be used as conduit of committing more complex
crimes. For instance, men may purport itself as a member of LGBTQ+ to enter the
female restroom to commit voyeurism. Such act is against the honor and chastity of
women.
Such acts derived from the present situation cannot be condone on the basis blind
adherence of perceived morality. The same would be subjective.
Given the foregoing, the establishment of exclusive, gender neutral restrooms is
indeed the most practical way to address the issue at hand,