Etikk i
praksis. Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics (2022), 16(1), 21-31 |
http://dx.doi.org/10.5324/eip.v16i1.4112 |
Early View publication date:
22 June 2022 |
Lowering
Toilet Seats: Why It Should Be the Norm
University of Zurich, bouke.devries@uzh.ch Many people who stand
to pee raise the toilet seat so that they
have a larger target to aim at.
However, if the seat is left in this
position, any subsequent toilet user who
defecates or pees sitting down will need to
lower the seat. Some of us believe
that this inconvenience should not be
visited on those who pee sitting down,
while others deny that there is anything
wrong with leaving the toilet seat in
the position that you used it. This article
offers the first scholarly defense
of the seat-down norm. In so doing, it shows
that recent claims that this norm
would be unfair and inefficient are
unwarranted.
Male1 bathroom users are generally better-equipped to pee from a standing position than their female counterparts. The reason for this is that the pointy shape of their genitalia makes it easier for them to form an orderly stream. Yet, despite helping to improve their accuracy, having a penis by no means guarantees that those who pee standing, whom I will refer to as Stehpinkler, will manage to deposit all of their urine within the toilet bowl. As almost everyone who either is a Stehpinkler or who has shared a toilet with one is able to attest, things sometimes goes wrong with potentially dire consequences for fellow toilet users. To reduce this risk, many Stehpinkler
raise the toilet seat of throne toilets
(which is the type of toilet on which I
focus in this article)2
before peeing. This way, they have a larger
toilet-bowl surface to aim at.
However, if the seat is left upright after
use, any subsequent toilet user who
defecates or pees sitting down will need to
lower the seat in order to
go about her business. For many people
(often but not exclusively women), this
inconvenience should not be visited on those
who pee sitting down, whom I will
refer to as Sitzpinkler, which leads
them to endorse what I call the
‘seat-down norm’, i.e. the norm that
requires toilet users to lower the seat
after use. An expression of this view can be
found in the following blog post
by a feminist author: A man leaving the toilet seat
up is like slapping the woman who
comes into the bathroom after him in the
face! There is nothing about my
anatomy that would require me to touch a
toilet seat, basically ever, and the
fact that they’re making me touch it
unnecessarily is not only gross, it’s
wildly disrespectful. This is the patriarchy
in action! Maleness is assumed.
Women’s bodies and needs aren’t considered.
It makes me so mad! (Northrup,
2017). Others, by contrast, deny that
there is
anything wrong with leaving the toilet seat
in the position that you used it.
One argument that is often marshalled in
support of this claim is that for Stehpinkler
to accommodate Sitzpinkler by
lowering the toilet seat without the
latter reciprocating by raising it is unfair
as it requires one group of toilet
users to make concessions but not the other
(e.g.
Choi, 2002, p.
303; Walker, 2019).
Consider the following contribution to an
online
discussion: A man goes into the
bathroom and puts the seat up, then he puts
it down before he leaves. A woman
goes into the bathroom and doesn’t put the
seat up or down because the man
already did it for her. I have never
understood this. How is it fair? In my
household, you (and only you) are
responsible for making sure the toilet seat
is in the correct position for YOU. My
husband doesn’t have to put the seat
down for any more than I have to put it up
for him (Walker,
2019). Given that the large majority
of Stehpinkler
are men, this argument further suggests
that the seat-down norm is sexist,
which is why I will refer to it as the
‘unfairness/sexism objection’. Another argument that has been
made
against the seat-down norm might be labelled
the ‘inefficiency objection’. According to
this objection, there are various contexts
where this norm is inefficient in that it
fails to minimize the number of times
that the position of the toilet seat needs
to be altered. For example,
economists Jai Choi (2002), Hammad Siddiqi (2006), and Richard Harter (2005) have shown that in a
two-member household with one Stehpinkler
and one Sitzpinkler, the
strategy whereby each toilet user leaves
the toilet seat in the position in which
they used it – call this the
‘leave-the-seat-as-you-used-itnorm’ – dominates
the one where the seat
is either always left down or always left
up. This is because while there is no
gain – but also no loss – in efficiency when
the Stehpinkler and the Sitzpinkler
strictly alternate their toilet visits, once
there are consecutive peeing
visits by the same toilet user, the number
of times that the toilet seat needs
to be adjusted is reduced (cf.
Choi, 2002, p.
306).
Likewise, in places where Stehpinkler outnumber Sitzpinkler, the
seat-down norm is likely to be
inefficient, because unless the Sitzpinkler urinate
much
more frequently than their standing
counterparts, the probability of the next
urinator being a Stehpinkler
will
be greater. As plausible as the objections
just
mentioned might seem, the remainder of this
article argues that they are
unsuccessful. Specifically, I will contend
that whenever Stehpinkler and
Sitzpinkler share a toilet or, to be
more precise, whenever there is a
significant chance that a toilet will be
used by Sitzpinkler,3
the seat-down norm ought to be observed. By
‘ought to be observed’, I here mean
that Stehpinkler have decisive
moral reason to lower the toilet seat
after they finish urinating. In some cases,
I will suggest that these reasons
are strong enough to generate a duty to
close the seat, the violation of which
will render people liable to blame; however,
I will not try to provide an
exhaustive overview of cases where such
duties exist, which remains an important
task for future research. Before moving on, I should
stress that the
toilet seat issue is by no means a trivial
issue as some might think.
Not only will we see that strong interests
may be at stake in terms of people’s
safety, health, time, and subjective
wellbeing, there is also ample anecdotal
evidence that many individuals feel strongly
about it (see, for instance, the
quotes at the outset) and that fights over
the proper default position of the
toilet seat are not uncommon (e.g.
Forcing Men
to Put down the Toilet Seat Is Sexist,
2018; What’s with All the Rage
over Leaving the Toilet Seat Up?,
2010; Why Is It the Man’s
Responsibility to Put the Toilet Seat
Down?). Further evidence that this
issue matters to a large
share of people is provided by e.g. - The
numerous popular media
articles, blog contributions and scholarly
papers that have been devoted to it
(e.g.
Andresen,
2010; Choi, 2002; Harter, 2005; Lawton &
Lawton, 2022; Marvasi, 2008; Moss,
2015; Northrup, 2017; Siddiqi, 2006;
Stromberg, 2015). - The
fact that searching
online with the phrase ‘toilet seat up or
down’ yielded more than 36,000
results on Google’s search engine as of
early March 2022. - The
fact that in 2012 a
local Swedish leftist party attempted to
make it illegal for people to urinate
standing in office bathrooms (The
Local, 2012).
Having
suggested
that the toilet seat issue is worth our
attention, my aim in this
section is to offer three arguments for
the seat-down norm. Together, these
arguments will show that the
unfairness/sexism objection and the
inefficiency
objection to this norm are both wanting
and, following from this, that Stehpinkler
have decisive moral reason to lower
the toilet seat whenever there is a
significant chance of the next toilet user
being a Sitzpinkler.
The
risks of not lowering the toilet seat
The first argument for the
seat-down norm is that compliance with
this norm eliminates the risk of toilet
users falling into the toilet because
they mistakenly believe the seat to be down.
As it happens, I am unaware of statistics on
the prevalence of this
type of bathroom-related accident. While it
is known that in 2008 alone (the
latest year for which there is data), circa
235,000 people aged 15 and above
visited emergency rooms in the United States
after sustaining injuries in
bathrooms and while almost 14 percent of
these accidents were associated with
people standing up from, sitting down on or
using the toilet (Center
for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2011), there are no breakdowns that
indicate how many of
these individuals found themselves caught in
the toilet bowl. That said, a lot
of anecdotal evidence exists that some
individuals are at significant risk of
suffering this fate as they have fallen into
the toilet more than once. Consider
the
following testimony by a woman to whom this
applies: I can go to bathroom with my
eyes partially shut, use the toilet
and back to bed without being totally awake.
So, when my quiet little walk to
bathroom ends, when I sit on toilet and my
happy little butt hits water. First,
I'm woke up, not a normal wake. A feel of
falling, takes a little effort to get
up. Then as I dry my butt, I'm cussing. Has
been years, but I have a sign, that
reads you will get bucket of water poured on
your head if you leave lid up (Allen,
2017). Or consider the following
testimony by a different woman who
reports having fallen into her toilet on
several occasions, which she describes
happened …usually at
night or in the morning when my contact
lenses were out. At least once when I
was six or seven months pregnant and had to
wait for someone to walk past to
hear me calling for help out of the toilet.
Seriously, guys, it's gross, and
uncomfortable to painful, and it's not hard
to remember. I put the lid down
every time I've used the toilet. If I can
remember that, anyone can (Billy,
2017). The
risks of not closing the toilet lid
The second argument for the
seat-down norm is also premised on the
notion that it is morally
incumbent on us to bear small costs if
this is necessary to avoid imperiling
others’ health and safety. According to
this argument, there
are
cases where health and safety
considerations impose a moral duty on all
toilet
users to close the toilet lid
after urinating or defecating. Since
toilet lids can be closed only if
the toilet seat is lowered, such
duties entail a duty to lower the seat.
Peeing
standing as a socially expensive taste
It is important to observe at
this point
that health and safety-arguments for the
seat-down norm do not settle the
toilet-seat issue across the board. The
reason for this is that there are cases
of Stehpinkler and Sitzpinkler
sharing a bathroom where there is neither
a significant danger of people falling
into the toilet nor a significant
danger of them contracting health problems
as a result of exposure to toilet
plumes. This will be true, for instance,
when all members of a given household
have a normal immune system as well as a
habit of carefully inspecting the
toilet-seat position before sitting down.
In such cases, the question arises as
to whether the seat-down norm can still be
justified. Some may say that
it can,
based on the fact that, everything else
being equal, Stehpinkler are at
greater risk of defiling the bathroom
than both Sitzpinkler
and
those who squat above the toilet bowl,
given that the relatively large distance
between their pee-hole and the toilet
bowl comes with an elevated risk that
their urine stream will miss the inside
of the bowl, disperse before reaching it,
or hit the inside of the bowl with
such velocity as to cause considerable
splashback (Morgan,
2013). To
reduce these risks, it might be argued
that urinators have a
moral duty to adopt either a sedentary
position or a (low enough) squatting
position, which, if correct, would count
in favour of the seat-down norm. To see
why, it should be observed that one of
these positions, namely the sedentary
position, requires the toilet seat to be
down to be adopted safely by many, if
not most, people, whereas those who pee
while squatting are normally able to do
so in a safe and orderly fashion with
the toilet seat down (indeed, lowering
the seat reduces the risk of them
falling into the toilet and thereby
increases their safety). While I think that
this
argument has merit in some cases, I do not
want to put too much weight on it
here. The reason for this is that even
when Stehpinkler end up creating a mess, this will
not be much of a problem if (i) they
clean up after themselves and (ii) nobody
has to postpone emptying their
bladder or bowels in the meantime, perhaps
because they have recently used the
toilet or because there is another toilet
that they can use. Rather than being
justified by the elevated risk that Stehpinkler run of spreading
their
urine across the bathroom vis-à-vis Sitzpinkler, then, I believe
that
the seat-down norm is justified by another
difference
between these groups. This difference lies
in the fact that whereas Stehpinkler are
usually able to pee sitting down with no
significantly greater difficulty (which is
not to say that urinating must be
easy for them; the claim here is simply a
comparative one), many Sitzpinkler cannot
pee standing or squatting without
creating a mess or without endangering
their safety. Reasons for this may
include, but are not necessarily limited
to: - The
fact that they
have difficulties aiming their stream,
which is especially challenging for
(biological) women given that these
individuals lack a penis, as well as for
tall men due to the relatively large
distance between their pee-hole and the
toilet bowl. - The
fact that they
have medical conditions that cause their
urine stream to split, such as a
urethral stricture; a blocking
of the opening of the tip of the penis
(Meatal Stenosis); or an overly tight
foreskin (Phimosis) (Parekh,
2019). - The
fact that they
are physically unable to stand or squat
because of an injury or disability. To support the
claim that
it is fitting to treat the sitting
position as the default – and implied by
this, to expect Sitzpinkler
to lower the
toilet seat
after they finish urinating – by virtue of
being the only urination
position
in which (almost) everyone can pee in an
orderly and safe fashion, I want to make
two observations. The first is that
the principle of inclusivity justifying
the seat-down norm seems to be widely
accepted in other contexts, which provides
reason to think that it carries
force for our case as well. For example,
in large parts of the non-Anglophone
world, English tends to be used as the
language of communication when at least
some interlocutors do not know
(sufficiently well) the local language and
when
there is no other language that can be
used more easily for communication.
Under these conditions, it is often
regarded as respectful to use a language
that everyone (more or less) knows even
if some
interlocutors
prefer to use a different language, such
as the local one (Van
Parijs, 2011).
Another example may be found in cases
where
some, but not all, participants of a
workshop are principled vegans and where
a
choice has to be made by the organizers
for ordering vegan, vegetarian, or
carnivore lunches (suppose arguendo
that
offering a combination of these options
is not possible as this would require
the organizers to order from multiple
vendors for which there is no budget).
All else being equal, my sense is that
many
of us would say here that the proper
thing to do is to opt for the vegan
option
even if some workshop participants
prefer vegetarian or carnivore food,
given
that this is the only option to which
nobody has conscientious objections (cf.
BBC,
2020). Still
another example may be found in the
social norm that expects physically
strong users of plate-loaded weight
machines to set the pins of these
machines at a relatively light weight
after
finishing their exercise. Undergirding
this norm is an ideal of inclusion
similar to the ones in the previous
cases, according to which the
appropriate
way to respond to differences in
people’s physical strength is to create
conditions under which most, if not all,
subsequent gym users are able to do a
given exercise without having to make
any adjustments. The second
observation
supporting the seat-down norm is that in a
world in which everyone urinated
sitting, toilet seats would never have to be
raised for purposes
of excretion. The reason this
matters
is that the number of times we would be
handling the toilet seat would be
reduced dramatically compared to a
scenario where either the
leave-the-seat-as-you-used-it norm or the
seat-up norm requiring the toilet
seat to be left upright is universally
observed, which has two major
advantages. One is that a good portion of
us would much less frequently
experience the discomfort, if not outright
disgust, that many Stehpinkler and Sitzpinkler alike experience
when
altering the toilet seat. Such feelings of
discomfort and disgust can be
explained in part by the fact that the
toilet seat is widely yet wrongly
believed to be one of the most unhygienic
objects within the home. As Chuck
Gerba, professor of microbiology at the
University of Arizona, has found in his
studies, the average toilet seat contains
50 bacteria per square inch, which is
400 times fewer than the average keyboard
and 200,000 times fewer than the
average kitchen sponge, making it ‘one of
the cleanest things you'll run across
in terms of micro-organisms’ (quoted in
Pritchard,
2012).
However, even if knowledge of the
relatively
cleanliness of toilet seats were more
common, one would expect many
individuals
to continue to find the activity of
altering the toilet seat position
unpleasant because of the ways in which
a large number of us have been
socialized to associate toilets with
dirtiness (cf.
Molotch &
Noren, 2010). The other
advantage of a
world in which everyone urinated sitting
is that all urinators would save a lot
of time because of the reduced frequency
with which they would be handling the
toilet seat. For while changing the seat’s
position only takes a few seconds, the
fact that we urinate circa 6 or 7 times a
day on
average (Smith,
2016) means that, over the course
of our lives, the amount
of time saved can really add up. Consider a Sitzpinkler who is raised in
a
four-member household with one father and
one older brother who are both Stehpinkler and who
do not lower the toilet seat after
they finish peeing.
If we imagine that
this
person: -
learned to use the
toilet by herself at the age of three; -
lowers the toilet
seat on average twice a day (which seems a
conservative estimate considering that
half of the people she is living with
are non-toilet-seat-lowering Stehpinkler); and -
spends an average of
two seconds on this task, then during the
rest of her
childhood, she will
spend
365 x
4 x 15 = 21,900 seconds changing the
toilet seat position (excluding cases
where the position is altered for
cleaning purposes), which amounts to 365
hours or 15 days of her life. Were she
later to live with housemates or
romantic partners who are
non-toilet-seat-lowering Stehpinkler, this
figure will
be considerably larger still, possibly
multiple times. Similarly, in a world in
which everyone urinated sitting, those
who are currently Stehpinkler
could
easily
save weeks, if not months, of their
lives. This is because they would
never again be raising the toilet seat
to urinate or lowering it to defecate or
to accommodate Sitzpinkler, which
would free up a lot of time since most
of us spend years, if not decades,
living with Sitzpinkler
who
may include
our mothers, sisters, girlfriends and
wives, as well as possible male Sitzpinkler. Even when
people
feel (fairly) neutral about the act of
lowering the toilet seat, perhaps
because they are not easily disgusted or
because their awareness of the
relative cleanliness of toilet seats
prevents them from experiencing disgust
or
other aversive mental states, these are
noteworthy benefits given that this
time will become available for other
more enjoyable or meaningful activities.
(Lest
I be misunderstood, I am not claiming
that this time can be spent all at once;
its value lies instead in the fact that
on thousands of occasions, people will
be able to devote slightly more time to
enjoyable or meaningful activities
after they finish going to the
bathroom.) In response, a
critic
might deny that that the seat-down norm is
vindicated by the observation that
we would all save much time in a world in
which everyone urinated from a
sedentary position. Specifically, she
might assert that because many people in
our world will continue
to pee standing, it remains true that Stehpinkler will spend
substantially
more time adjusting the toilet seat
position than their sitting counterparts
under the proposed norm but not under the
leave-the-seat-as-you-used-it norm or
the seat-up norm. Assuming that the time
of Stehpinkler is as valuable as that of Sitzpinkler, this might
suggest that
the unfairness objection still stands in
cases where lowering the toilet seat
is not necessary for protecting people’s
safety or health (see the previous
subsections) and that the same is true of
the inefficiency objection in cases
where eschewing the seat-down norm reduces
the number of times that the toilet
seat position needs to be altered in order
to accommodate people’s preferences
(see the previous section). The problem with
this
response is that it glosses over a
relevant and previously discussed
asymmetry:
Whereas Stehpinkler
are
normally able to pee sitting down with no
significantly greater difficulty, many Sitzpinkler can pee in a safe and orderly
manner only if they adopt the sedentary
position. What this means is that peeing
standing is not something that
Stehpinkler must do to be
able to urinate or to do so in a safe
and orderly fashion in the way that many Sitzpinkler can only urinate (in a safe and
orderly fashion) when sitting down, but
rather something that they choose
to do because they find
it
somehow more enjoyable than peeing
sitting. However, if this is true, then
just
as Ronald Dworkin has plausibly argued
that societies should not give more
resources (e.g. higher welfare benefits or
pensions) to people who are only
satisfied eating clover’s eggs and
drinking pre-phylloxera claret than to
those
who are satisfied consuming cheaper foods
and beverages, including regular eggs
and wine (Dworkin,
1981; for further
discussion, see e.g. Cohen,
2008; Hansen
& Midtgaard, 2011; Holtug, 2015), so it
seems they should not bear the extra
cost of some people’s preferences for
peeing standing as detailed above.
Another way of making this point is to
say that in both cases, accommodating
people’s expensive preferences – or
‘expensive tastes’ as they are usually
called in the literature – looks unfair
given that the holders of these tastes
can easily achieve the same basic
functionings, namely those of getting
adequate nutrition and emptying their
bladder, in ways that are
not expensive for the rest of society, which
in the toilet case involves peeing
sitting.
Defining
Political
Speech
I
shall try to define political speech in this
section and argue why hate speech, in my
opinion, cannot be categorized as political
speech in general.
1)
A citizen is
dissatisfied with the many
Middle-Eastern immigrants who have
moved into her neighbourhood lately.
She criticizes the authorities´
decision to allow so many of these
immigrants to move into the
neighbourhood since she finds it to
have a negative impact on the
neighbourhood. The local children
will be influenced by the foreign
children who don´t speak their
language, and the women might feel
threatened by the men when meeting
them alone in the local community,
she reflects. The dissatisfied
citizen posts her thoughts on
Facebook and other social media
where she has a great number of
followers. 2)
Another citizen living
in the same neighbourhood is
likewise dissatisfied with the
authorities´ decision on these
matters. She also decides to post
her opinion on Facebook where she,
as the other citizen, has a large
number of followers. Her post says
that all Middle Eastern men are
terrorists who come to the West with
the sole purpose to kill Western
citizens through terror attacks. According to hate speech
legislation in European (and other)
countries, the second example falls
under the label of hate speech while
the first falls under protected –
and perhaps political – speech. The
second example generalizes and
coarsely degrades Middle Eastern men
(they are grouped based on their
ethnicity) by calling them
terrorists who are on a mission to
kill Western citizens.
The bottom line is that although the argument from political speech is an argument of great relevance and importance in any liberal democracy, its reach does not extend as far as to validate the dismissal of hate speech legislation. Conclusion
That concludes my
defense
of the seat-down norm in places where Stehpinkler
and Sitzpinkler share
a toilet or, to be more
precise, ones where the chance is
significant that the next toilet user will
be
a Sitzpinkler. As we are now in a
position to see, the main reason why
the seat-down norm should be observed in
these contexts is that the preference
to pee standing is an expensive taste, just
like preferences for e.g. rare eggs
and fancy wines are, and it would be wrong
to make the rest of society pay for
such tastes. However, if this is so, then
while it will still sometimes be
morally permissible for people to pee
standing in bathrooms that are likely to
be used by Sitzpinkler, this
prerogative is conditional on them being
able and willing to internalize the actual
and potential costs of such peeing,
which means that the following requirements
must be fulfilled:
i.
They should have the
ability to clean up any mess that peeing
standing might create without
increasing waiting times.
ii.
If they end up creating
such a mess, they should clean it up and do
so fast enough to avoid increasing
waiting times. iii. They
should close the
toilet seat after finishing peeing (in some
cases together with the toilet lid
for health or safety reasons). Acknowledgements
I want to thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments. Notes
1
I
use the terms ‘male’
and ‘female’ here in a biological sense. 2
Far from being a universal problem, it
should be noted that the toilet seat
issue arises only in places with this type
of toilet, which have a toilet bowl
with a O-shaped seat attached to it that
can be raised by the user. Given that
so-called ‘squat toilets’, which are the
dominant type of toilet within large
parts of Asia and Africa, and which
essentially consist of a hole in the
ground
over which a urinator or defecator squats,
lack toilet seats, they do not raise
the issue of whether the toilet seat ought
to be lowered after use. References Allen,
R. (2017, May
14). Have you ever fallen in the
toilet because the seat was left
upright?
Quora.
https://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-fallen-in-the-toilet-because-the-seat-was-left-upright Andresen,
M. (2010).
Up or down? An efficiency-based argument
for optimal toilet seat placement. Science
Creative
Quarterly. https://www.scq.ubc.ca/
author/martinaandresen/ BBC.
(2020, January
3). Ethical veganism is philosophical
belief, tribunal rules. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50981359 Best,
E. L., Sandoe,
J. a. T., & Wilcox, M. H. (2012).
Potential for aerosolization of
Clostridium difficile after flushing
toilets: The role of toilet lids in
reducing environmental contamination risk.
The Journal of Hospital Infection,
80(1), 1–5. CrossRef
Billy,
R. (2017, June
5). Have you ever fallen in the toilet
because the seat was left upright? Quora.
https://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-fallen-in-the-toilet-because-the-seat-was-left-upright Center
for Disease
Control and Prevention. (2011). Nonfatal
bathroom injuries among persons aged
≥15 years—United States, 2008. MMWR.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
60(22), 729–733. Choi,
J. P. (2002).
Up or down? A Male Economist’s Manifesto
on the Toilet Seat Etiquette. Economic
Inquiry, 49(1), 303–309. CrossRef
Cohen,
G. A. (2008).
Expensive Tastes Riders Again. In J.
Burley (Ed.), Dworkin and His Critics:
With Replies by Dworkin (pp. 3–29).
John Wiley & Sons. Consumer
Product
Safety Commission. (2016, August 22). CPSC
Warns: Pools Are Not the Only
Drowning Danger at Home for Kids - Data
Show Other Hazards Cause More than 100
Residential Child Drowning Deaths
Annually. U.S. Consumer Product
Safety
Commission. https://www.cpsc.
gov/content/cpsc-warns-pools-are-not-the-only-drowning-danger-at-home-for-kids-data-show-other-hazards/// Deutsche
Welle.
(2004, October 27). A Ghost for German
Toilets | DW | 27.10.2004.
DW.COM. https://www.dw.com/en/a-ghost-for-german-toilets/a-1378083 Dworkin,
R. (1981).
What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of
Welfare. Philosophy & Public
Affairs, 10(3), 185–246. Forcing
Men to put
down the toilet seat is sexist. (2018, September 9).
HLTV.Org.
https://www.hltv.org/forums/threads/1868855/forcing-men-to-put-down-the-toilet-seat-is-sexist Hansen, R. S., &
Midtgaard, S. F. (2011). Sinking
Cohen’s
Flagship – or Why People with Expensive
Tastes Should Not Be Compensated. Journal
of
Applied Philosophy, 28(4),
341–354. CrossRef
Harter,
R. (2005,
December 31). A game theoretic approach to
the toilet seat problem. The
Science Creative Quarterly.
https://www.scq.ubc.ca/a-game-theoretic-approach-to-the-toilet-seat-problem/ Holtug,
N. (2015).
Welfare Luck Egalitarianism and Expensive
Tastes. Moral Philosophy and
Politics, 2(1), 179–206. CrossRef
Lawton,
G., &
Lawton, I. by G. (2022, April 1). You be
the judge: Should my brother stop
leaving the toilet seat up? The
Guardian. https://www.theguardian.
com/ifeandstyle/2022/apr/01/you-be-the-judge-should-my-brother-stop-leaving-the-toilet-seat-up Marvasi,
E. (2008,
December). Toilet Seat Rules: Why you
Shouldn’t Care [MPRA Paper].
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/46843/ McCloskey,
J. (2019,
May 3). Baby fell into toilet and
drowned while being cared for by
stepsister, 16. Metro.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/03/baby-fell-toilet-drowned-cared-16-year-old-stepsister-9410543/ Molotch, H., & Noren, L.
(Eds.). (2010).
Toilet: Public Restrooms and the
Politics of Sharing. NYU Press. Morgan,
J. (2013,
November 6). Physics probes “splashback”
problem. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24820279 Moss,
G. (2015, March
20). 7 Reasons Dudes Should Be The
Ones To Put The Toilet Seat Back
Down—Every. Single. Time. Bustle.
https://www.bustle.com/
articles/70966-7-reasons-dudes-should-be-the-ones-to-put-the-toilet-seat-back-down-every Northrup,
K. (2017). Patriarchy,
Toilet Seats, and Feminism.
https://katenorthrup.
com/patriarchy-toilet-seats-and-feminism/ Parekh,
N. (2019,
October 2). What Does a Split Urine
Stream Mean? Health Essentials from
Cleveland Clinic.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-does-a-split-urine-stream-mean/ Pritchard,
C. (2012,
November 17). Is the toilet seat really
the dirtiest place in the home? BBC
News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20324304 Siddiqi,
H. (2006). The
social norm of leaving the toilet seat
down: A game theoretic analysis.
Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/856/1/MPRA_paper_856.pdf Smith,
J. (2016,
April 27). How often should you pee?
CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/
2016/04/26/health/pee-too-much/index.html Stromberg,
J. (2015,
February 2). The case against always
leaving the toilet seat down. Vox.
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/2/7963245/toilet-seat The
Local. (2012,
June 11). Left Party wants men to pee
sitting down. The Local Sweden.
https://www.thelocal.se/20120611/41358/ Van
Parijs, P.
(2011). Linguistic Justice for Europe
and for the World. Oxford
University Press. CrossRef
Walker,
V. (2019,
January 6). Quora.
https://www.quora.com/Regarding-bathroom-etiquette-why-do-men-have-to-put-the-toilet-seat-not-necessarily-the-lid-down-for-women What’s
with all the
rage over leaving the toilet seat up? (2010, September 7).
[Reddit Post].
R/TwoXChromosomes.
www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/
comments/daq8s/whats_with_all_the_rage_over_leaving_the_toilet/ Why is it the man’s responsibility to put the toilet seat down? (n.d.). Quora. Retrieved March 8, 2022, from https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-the-mans-responsibility-to-put-the-toilet-seat-down
|