The Perspectives of The People On Having Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in Our Lady of Fatima University-Q.C

The Perspectives of the People in Our Lady of Fatima University-Q.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents i
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
List of Appendices v
Abstract 1
1.0 The Problem and its Background 2
Introduction 2
Conceptual Framework 3
General Objectives 3
Statement of the Problem 3
Scope and Limitation 4
Definition of Terms 4
2.0 Review of Related Literature 5
2.1 Local Literature 5
2.1.1 LGBT
2.1.2 Gender Neutral Bathrooms 5
2.1.3 Supporting LGBT Rights 6
2.2 Foreign Literature 6
2.2.1 Gender 6
2.2.2 Gender Neutral Bathrooms 6-14
3.0 Methodology 14
3.1 Research Design 14
OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

The Perspectives of the People in Our Lady of Fatima University-Q.C
3.2 Research Locale 14
3.3 Population and Sampling 15
3.4 Research Ethics 15
3.5 Instrumentation 15
3.5 Data Gathering Procedure 16
3.6 Data Analysis 16
4.0 Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data 17
4.1 Demographic Profile 17
4.2 Theme Emerged 19-24
4.3 Summary of Results 24-31
5.0 Discussion 32
5.1 Conclusion 32
5.2 Framework of the Study 33
5.3 Recommendation 33
5.4 Acknowledgements 34
References 35

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Gender 17
Table 2: Age 18

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 2
Figure 2: Gender 17
Figure 3: Age 18
Figure 4: Framework of the Study 33

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: Permit to Conduct Research 36
Appendix II: Questionnaire 37
Appendix III: Figures 38
Appendix IV: Curriculum Vitae 39-45

ABSTRACT
The study entitled, “The Perspectives of the People about having Gender Neutral Bathrooms in
Our Lady of Fatima-QC”, sought to know the different point of views of the people in the campus.
Following the qualitative descriptive design, through convenience sampling, about twenty (20)
respondents undergone an interview. They evaluated different factors about implementing Gender-
Neutral Bathrooms in the campus. Furthermore, they also answered questions about the problems of not
having Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in the campus. According to the findings of the study, it has been
found out that most of the respondents agreed on implementing Gender-Neutral Bathrooms. After
conducting and analyzing this research, it has been found out that the respondents prefer to use the same
bathrooms that everybody else uses, for it increases the respondents’ confidence and feeling of safeness,
especially for the LGBTQ community.

Chapter 1
The Problem and its Background
1.0 Introduction
The school environment should be a safe place of learning for all students, regardless of sexual
orientation, race, or gender. Every person is born with dignity and humanity, and that includes their
gender expression. You could say that people who have a men genitals should use the male restroom and
that people with women genitals should use the female reistroom but that’s polarizing a considerable
amount of the population. These days, it’s a widely accepted fact that more than two genders exist. And
there are many variables in between.
One of the most critical aspect of gender transition is to ensure that a transgender person is able to
live, be seen and be treated by others in a matter consistent with the person’s gender identity. Getting used
to using the appropriate restroom is an important part of this process.
The researchers noticed that the number of the LGBT in the campus get larger and larger. Base on
the researchers’ observation, there are some students who’re not comfortable when someone opposite of
their gender, part of LGBT, enters the bathroom. Some people think that transgender individuals may
attacked or assault others in the bathroom or the men will pretend to be women to gain access to potential
victims. Women within the fabric of these fears is the long held stereotype that people who are gay or
transgender pedophiles or other sexual deviants.
The researchers believe that it has and always will be about more than bathrooms. It is about
receiving the most basic level of respect for your gender and existence from other human beings, but
starting with an ostensibly insignificant act that makes someone’s every day a little bit better will keep our
resolve intact as we push towards the larger issues.
“Some of you may feel campaigning for gender-neutral toilets is petty, but making small changes
like this will eventually soften society’s rigid attitudes toward gender. Whether it’s the language we use,
fighting for gender neutral toilets, engaging in organised debate, attending protests or even just calling out
and standing up to trans phobic hate on social media – we can all support and show solidarity with one
another in our own way. Once attitudes change, we will all have abetter understanding of one another,
move forward as a society and hopefully more lives will be saved.” (Easter book, A., 2015)

Perspectives
Gender Neutral Comfortably of

Bathrooms the respondents
Safeness
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study
1.2 Conceptual Framework

The study is based on the perspective of the people in Our Lady of Fatima University – Quezon
City on having Gender Neutral Bathrooms. The researchers want to know their thoughts about the
comfortably of the respondents and safeness of the usage, when approved to the LGBT and non- LGBT
community. If this proposed facility will provide more support to their rights.
1.3 General Objectives

The Researchers, believe every person is born with dignity and humanity, and that includes their
gender expression. The researchers want a safe way for the LGBT community and the non-LGBT
community to use the restroom and that would be to give the option of a gender-neutral facility. This
research deals with getting the opinions of the people in the campus about having gender neutral
bathrooms.
1.4 Statement of the Problem

This study aims to answer the general question “Does the people in Our Lady of Fatima
University-QC approves on having Gender Neutral Bathrooms?”
Specifically it sought to answer the following questions:
1. Demographic profiles of the respondents in terms of:

1.1 Age
1.2 Gender
1. What comes to the respondent’s mind first when the respondents hear of Gender Neutral Bathrooms

2. What are the thoughts of the respondents about implementing this proposal?
3. What are the problems created by not having gender neutral bathrooms?
4. What are the benefits that the respondents can get towards the Gender-Neutral Bathrooms personally?
1.7 Scope and Limitation
To determine the assumption of the citizens in Our Lady of Fatima University-QC, the
researchers selected fifty respondents to take their opinion about having a gender neutral bathrooms in the
campus. This research contains if they are agree with having gender neutral bathrooms, comfortably of
the students, teachers, staffs and visitors when using bathroom and factors affecting the sexuality of a
person, if LGBT is accepted or being discriminated in our generation.
1.8 Definition of Terms
This part is intended to assist you in understanding commonly used terms and concepts when
reading, interpreting, and evaluating scholarly research. Also included are general words and phrases
defined within the context of how they apply to research. (Easter book, 2015)
Gender Neutral Bathrooms – Also known as all gender bathrooms, and often carry a sign which
reflects that people of all genders are welcome in the facility. (McCormick, 2017)
LGBTQ –Is a shorthand that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer. The “LGB”
in this term refers to sexual orientation. (Windsor, 2001)

Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
This chapter presents the review of research and literature related with the LGBT
community’s rights and the struggle in achieving those rights: especially in terms of having Gender-Neutral
bathrooms. With this, the researchers aim to focus more on studies that pertains to the perspective of the
LGBTQ and non-LGBT members of implementing Gender-Neutral bathrooms in Our Lady of Fatima
University.
2.1 Local Literature
2.1.1 LGBT
There are many issues faced by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) community here
in the Philippines, specifically with the Youth. And bullying is one of it. They experience bullying in any
forms, like Physical Bullying. (Carlos, 2017), a 19-year-old gay student from Olongapo City, said: “When
I was in high school, they’d push me, punch me. When I’d get out of school, they’d follow me and push
me, call me ‘gay,’ ‘faggot,’ things like that.” (Marisol, 2017) a 21-year-old transgender woman, said: When
I was in high school, there was a teacher who always went around and if you had long hair, she would call
you up to the front of the class and cut your hair in front of the students. That happened to me many times.
It made me feel terrible: I cried because I saw my classmates watching me getting my hair cut.
Verbal bullying is also one of them. (Daniel, 2017) an 18-year-old gay student in Bacacay, said
“People will say gay—they’ll say ‘gay, gay,’ repeating it, and insulting us.” Others described how they
were treated as though they were diseased or contagious. (Felix, 2017), a 22-year-old gay high school
student in Legazpi, noted: “Here, they call us ‘carriers’—there’s a stereotype that gays are responsible for
HIV.”
Of course, Sexual Assault & Harassment is also on the list. (Gabby, 2017) a 16-year-old
transgender girl at a school in Bayombong, described a series of incidents that she experienced, including
other students attempting to strip off her clothes in public, being forced into a restroom and sexually
assaulted, and—on a separate occasion—being locked in a cubicle in a men’s restroom and sexually
assaulted. This hasn’t been the only situation that occurred especially with the Transgender women. This
has been proven by (Eric Manalastas, 2017), a professor of psychology at the University of the Philippines

who has studied LGBT youth issues, observed “a theme of being highly sexualized and sexually harassed,
especially for the gender non-conforming male students.A member of the Quezon City Pride
Council(RhyeGentoleo, 2017), a city commission designed to enforce LGBT rights protections, observed
that LGBT youth often face considerable pressure from heterosexual, cisgender peers to be sexually active
because they are LGBT: “And that’s how the LGBT kids are being bullied as well. ‘Oh, you’re gay, can
you satisfy me?’ They’re being challenged, how far can you go as a gay, how far can you go as a lesbian.
And they have different ways of coping—some are hiding, but a lot of them are taking the challenge, being
sexually active, without thinking of the consequences.” These Sexual assaults and discrimination
(Philippines and elsewhere, 2017) had made most of the LGBT people to destructive coping behaviors such
as substance use or unprotected sex.
2.1.2 Gender-Neutral Bathrooms
For students who are transgender or identify as a sex other than their sex assigned at birth, rigid
gender restrictions can be stressful and make learning difficult. One of the areas where gender restrictions
arose most often for LGBT interviewees was in access to toilet facilities, known in the Philippines as
“comfort rooms” (CRs). Most interviewees said that their schools required students to use CRs that aligned
with their sex assigned at birth, regardless of how they identified or where they were most comfortable.
Some said that both female and male CRs posed safety risks or made them uncomfortable, but that all-
gender restrooms were scarce.
Requiring students to use restrooms that did not match their gender identity or expression put them
at risk of bullying and harassment. (Gabby, 2017) a 16-year-old transgender girl in Bayombong, said that
“boys peep on us when we use the boy’s restroom,” and “they say we’re trying to have sex with them,
things like that.” (Reyna N., 2017), a 24-year-old transgender woman, agreed: “Boys or male persons are
always vigilant when it comes to gays and transgenders. Any time they see us going in the CR, they
sometimes look at you like I’m going to do something, with malice, or look at us like a maniac.” Because
of this, (Gabby, 2017) said, “Sometimes you don’t have a choice but to go home and use your own
restroom.”
Some schools punish students for using the CRs where they felt comfortable. (Ruby, 2017) a 16-
year-old transgender girl who attended high school in Batangas, said: “I was called by the administration
when I used the CR for the girls. They said you’re not allowed to use it just because you feel like you’re a
girl. They used that as a black mark on my campaign for student council. They said, even though he wants
to be student council president, he doesn’t follow the rules.”Even students who were not formally punished

described being humiliated by faculty and staff policing gendered spaces. (Alon, 2017) a gay teacher in
Cebu City, said that the administration at the school where he taught had posted “a printed sign that says
only biological females are able to be in this bathroom.”
At least one secondary school has created all-gender CRs that any person can use regardless of their
gender identity. But while some students may feel more comfortable using all-gender CRs, others prefer to
use the same CRs that everybody else uses. (Reyna L., 2017) a 24-year-old transgender woman, said, “I’d
like to use the female comfort room, and be treated as a normal person…. If I can’t, I’d rather not use it at
all.” Allowing students to use CRs consistent with their gender identity can be a simple and uncontroversial
step that makes a positive difference for transgender youth. (Ella, 2017) a 23-year-old transgender woman
from Manila, noted that when she transferred to a new high school: “I was able to use the girls’ bathroom,
freely, since most of the peers were really supportive. And there haven’t been any incidents of, like, adverse
reactions to some guys going into the girls’ bathroom. My teacher knew I was doing it—he just warned me
that some girls might get offended. But nobody complained.”
Policies that prevent students from accessing restrooms consistent with their gender identity exist
in post-secondary institutions as well.(Dalisay N., 2017) a 20-year-old panromantic woman at a university
in Caloocan, said: “Some of the trans women in our support group, the guards would shout, “Why are you
using that restroom? You’re not allowed in there,” which for me is disrespectful. Why do they care? They’re
just putting on makeup, and they just want to feel safe when they pee. Because there’s a lot of teasing and
bullying in the men’s room.” (Marisol D., 2017) a 21-year-old transgender woman, said that in her
university, instructors reported transgender students to the discipline office for using the “wrong” restroom.
As in secondary schools, university policies that prevent students from accessing facilities on the basis of
their gender identity are discriminatory and function to make sure the student’s safety, health, privacy, and
the right to education.
2.1.3 Supporting LGBTs rights
The Department of Education (2012), enacted a Child Protection Policy designed to address
bullying and discrimination in schools, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The
following year, (Congress) passed the Anti-Bullying Law of 2013, with implementing rules and regulations
that enumerate sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited grounds for bullying and harassment.
The adoption of these policies sends a strong signal that bullying and discrimination are unacceptable and
should not be tolerated in educational institutions. In the same year,(Congress, 2012) passed the
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Law, which provides that “the State shall provide age-

and development-appropriate reproductive health education to adolescents which shall be taught by

adequately trained teachers.” In response to lengthy delays, President Duterte issued an executive order in
January 2017 requiring agencies to implement the law; in part, the order instructs DepEd to “implement a
gender-sensitive and rights-based comprehensive sexuality education in the school curriculum. To support
these, the Philippines has also ratified core international agreements that obligate lawmakers,
administrators, and teachers to protect the rights of LGBT youth, including the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women.
2.2 Foreign literature
2.2.1 Gender
In contrast to those views which take the naturalness of gender for granted, there are a number of
perspectives that understand it as a socially constructed phenomenon. These diverse traditions have in
common their treatment of gender as a continual process of negotiation and accomplishment, in which small
gestures and indicators are crucial to achieving social intelligibility as a gendered person (West and
Zimmerman 1987; Kessler and McKenna 1978; Butler 1993). Such approaches can be found within queer
theory, feminist perspectives, and symbolic interactionism.
Adopting such a perspective on gender encourages us to understand the use of gendered public
bathrooms as one of the “daily practices through which gender is repeated and secured” (Namaste
2000:191). Thus, the existence of two ― and only two ― separate bathroom spaces props up the cultural
fantasy that all persons can be neatly categorized as male or female, and forecloses the possibilities of
alternative identifications (Browne 2004). As Cahill (1985) puts it, “Every time we enter a sex segregated
bathroom, we display our sex-identity to the audience-at-large and reaffirm its importance.” Here, cultural
anxieties around the loss of gender separation begin to become understandable. Public bathrooms provide
both an escape from the “other” sex, and more importantly, a daily reassurance that there is an “other” sex
to escape from. Societal attachment to this “segreative punctuation” as evidenced by the utility of the threat
of shared bathrooms by anti-ERA forces suggests a continuing commitment to the maintenance of gender
differences that may go deeper than many people realize or would be willing to admit (Cahill, 1985). The
fear of ending gender separation may have thus reflected “deep fears about sexual mixing, transgressing
social boundaries, and ending recognition of gender differences” – that is, fears about the instability of
gender itself (Cooper and Oldenziel 1999:17). As traditional gender divisions fall away ― albeit slowly

and unevenly ― the gender-segregated bathroom may come to be invested with more and more of the
symbolic work of maintaining the purity of gender categories.
2.2.2 Gender Neutral Bathrooms
According to Wernick, L., Kulick, A., & Chin, M. (2017), the issue of bathroom access to trans
youth has been of great significance in the United States since President Donald Trump issued a directive
earlier in the year to rescind protection of transgender students. The rights of such high school students to
use the bathroom associated with their gender is currently also the subject of legal deliberation by US courts.
In this regard, Wernick and her team’s research makes an important contribution, as very few empirical
studies have so far focused on this issue within the context of high schools. To support this, some
researchers analysed a multi-school climate survey conducted in 2014 at five public high schools in
southeast Michigan to examine the relationship between students’ gender identity, how safe they felt using
bathroom facilities at school and their grades and self-esteem. The school climate was also taken into
account, and how much acceptance people from different sexual identities enjoyed. The study also took
into account school climate, race, sexual orientation and grade level. Considerable variation in the ability
of schools to provide opportunities for the healthy development of students was found. For instance, there
are significant demographic disparities by gender, as well as race and sexual orientation. The findings affirm
a wide range of research that has documented the existence and persistence of inequalities throughout the
US educational system. Marginalized students who did not feel safe when using bathroom facilities, in
general, did not find school to be a secure place.
Compared to their cisgender counterparts, bathroom safety for trans safety in particular had a
significant impact on overall school safety, self-esteem and grades. “Together, these findings suggest that
while identifying as trans may help students, on average, to affirm their sense of self within the broader
community, it also exposes students to multiple barriers of sexism and genderism in successfully accessing
both social and educational opportunities in school environments,” explain the authors.
“Given the current legal and political contentions over the rights of trans students, our findings are
particularly important in elucidating the specific dynamics of bathroom safety among adolescents who are
both more substantially limited in their mobility and agency than adults, as well as engaged in crucial years
of identity development, relative to both gender as well as a range of other identities and experiences,” they
add.

According to Danni/y Rosendecades, laws have mandated that public bathrooms be accessible; they
must contain specific features, like larger stalls or lower sinks, to accommodate those whose needs aren’t
met by standard bathrooms, like people who use wheel chairs. Sometimes, public places also have a
bathroom that is larger than a standard stall, usually with a changing station for very young children, in
order to accommodate families. In our K-12 schools, bathrooms typically are sex-segregated and made up
of multiple stalls. Unfortunately, that means that these bathrooms fail to accommodate all students. Some
students may suffer from certain psychological conditions,which make use of these bathrooms impossible.
Various other medical conditions prevent use of these types of bathrooms as well. These bathrooms in
schools also pose difficulty to transgender and gender nonconforming students. GLSEN research shows
that nearly two thirds of transgender students avoid school bathrooms because of feeling unsafe or
uncomfortable. They risk verbal and physical harassment, no matter which of the two, sex-segregated
bathrooms they enter. Also, over half of transgender students report that they were required to use the
bathroom of their legal sex rather than the one that they feel most comfortable using. The U.S. Department
of Justice has deemed this requirement illegal under Title IX. Feeling unsafe, uncomfortable, and at risk of
illegal disciplinary action, these students might “hold it” or restrict intake of fluids, risking pain and
dehydration. Some of these students even leave school altogether. These outcomes are not positive in any
way, for any one. The solution here is not a new or radical concept: all schools should have private, gender-
neutral bathrooms for any students to use, in the same, normal way that homes have bathrooms for guests
to use and many restaurants have bathrooms that are not labeled for the sexes. This is not to suggest,
however, that there be a separate bathroom for transgender students, like presidential candidate Ben Carson
recently proposed, because separate is never equal. While this solution is not new, what is in fact new is the
notion that the needs of all students deserve to be met. And while this solution is not radical, what are in
fact radical is the positive impact that this solution has on transgender, gender nonconforming, and all
students for whom privacy in bathrooms benefits their wellbeing. GLSEN Oregon stands as a strong
advocate for gender-neutral bathrooms in schools. In a rural part of the state, we recently helped a high
school GSA creates change. Although our advocacy was a tough fight, we used GLSEN’s resources in our
efforts, ultimately changing all single-stall bathrooms in the school to gender-neutral bathrooms accessible
to all students during class time. We all want success for all students. Whether you are a student, educator,
or ally, you can use GLSEN’s model policy to advocate for gender-neutral bathrooms in schools. This
advocacy can help create learning environments that are safe and affirming, which all students need to reach
success. “It will address the concerns of transgender people who face intimidation and harassment in
gender-segregated facilities when they are perceived by others to be in the “wrong” one" (Luc Bovens and
Alexandru Marcoci, 2017). There are detractors. Some object that gender-neutral toilets take away safe
spaces for women. The waters of this ideological debate are deep. But there is one advantage of a move

away from segregated facilities that should appeal to all: it will reduce waiting times for women.We are all
too familiar with the long lines that form in front of women’s facilities in theatres or in any public places,
while there is little pressure on the men’s. Women have for a long time demanded that is, a set-up that
equalizes the average time men and women spend waiting to use the toilet. One way to do this is to install
more facilities for women. But this is not straightforward in London. It requires changes in architecture,
which are costly or even plain impossible in many of our listed buildings. While according to (Denise-
Marie Ordway, 2016), “Those who oppose eliminating gendered restrooms – or opening them to
transgender people — voice concerns about safety” Many of them argue that there is a potential danger in
allowing transgender women into ladies’ rooms because men posing as transgender women will enter
restrooms to prey upon girls and other women. In April 2016, Target drew national criticism after the retail
giant announced that it welcomes transgender employees and customers to use the restroom or fitting room
that corresponds with their gender identity. The American Family Association responded by launching a
petition to boycott Target – an online
Ilan Meyer (2003) outlined processes of minority stresss as they relate to lesbian, gay, and bisexual
(LGB) people. Meyer locates minority stressors on a range from distal to proximal. Distal minority stressors
are those that are based on events external to the individual and unrelated to the individual’s self-perception
or identity. These could be acute events, such as experiencing an incident of violence or job loss due to
being perceived as LGB, or chronic events, such as homelessness due to family rejection. Proximal minority
stressors are those that are based in an individual’s self-perception and identity. Meyer explains, “Minority
identity is linked to a variety of stress processes; some LGB people, for example, may be vigilant in
interactions with others (expectations of rejection), hide their identity for fear of harm (concealment), or
internalize stigma (internalized homophobia)” (2003, 676). Meyer has modeled and tested the relationship
between these processes of minority stress and mental health outcomes for gay and bisexual people, finding
that minority stress is associated with negative outcomes in social well-being and mental health (Meyer
1995; Meyer 2003; Kertzner, Meyer, Frost, and Stirratt 2009). Though Gordon and Meyer (2007) found
that LGB people suffer from prejudice, discrimination, and violence due to gender non-conformity, very
little research has applied minority stress models directly to the experiences and health outcomes of
transgender individuals and none have focused on gender segregation as a cause of minority stress. Without
question, transgender and gender non-conforming individuals experience violence, stigmatization, and
discrimination. In the largest survey of trans people to date, transgender and gender non-conforming people
reported being fired due to anti-transgender bias (26%), being harassed (78%) and physically assaulted
(35%) at school, suffering double the rate of unemployment, and attempting suicide at alarming rates (41%).

Transgender and gender non-conforming people across the United States certainly are suffering the negative
impacts and consequences of distal and proximal minority stressors. Furthermore, as a matter of tradition
and policy, we have built minority stressors for transgender and gender non-conforming people into our
very environment due to our reliance on gender segregation in public facilities. The impact of gender
segregation in transgender and gender non-conforming people’s lives has received little attention or study
in scholarly research and, as of this writing, no studies have been published in the fields of Public Policy
and Public Administration on this topic. However, research in Sociology and by transgender organizations
has provided descriptions of the experiences of transgender and gender nonconforming people in public
restrooms. In Queering Bathrooms: Gender, Sexuality, and the Hygienic Imagination, sociologist Sheila
Cavanagh presents findings from 100 interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex
(LGBTI) people on their thoughts and experiences regarding public restrooms (2010). While Cavanagh’s
study is mainly a theoretical mapping of how public restrooms reinforce gender and sexuality norms and
why LGBTI people are harmed in these spaces, she relates narratives from interview participants that
describe instances of harassment, humiliation, arrest, and physical violence in public restrooms.
Organizations that serve the trans community have also conducted research on transgender and gender non-
conforming people’s experiences in public restrooms. The Transgender Law Center, in cooperation with
the National Centre for Lesbian Rights found in a survey of transgender people in San Francisco that 63
percent of 75 respondents to questions regarding experiences in public accommodations experienced denial
of access and/or harassment at least once while using public restrooms (Minter and Daley 2003). In a
separate, more qualitative survey of transgender people in San Francisco, Dylan Vade found that “out of
116 responses from those who did not identify as male or female, 48 people took the time to write out
specific bathroom experiences, all negative. These experiences ranged from harassment to violence to
getting fired” (Vade 2002, 2).
A recent book on global access to sanitation can find nothing to say about “unisex restrooms” other
than to note that they are an “unpopular solution” to the problem of “potty disparity” (George 2008:143).
The author argues that the unisex bathrooms merely add additional problems onto the already awkward
situation of the public bathroom, in that they “contravene the social codes of gender segregation that have
prevailed forever” in most of the world. No evidence is provided for this claim – presumably the reader is
meant to take it as obvious. Neither is any reference to gender variance made, which is odd given that
gender-neutral bathrooms of one form or another have mainly been presented as a solution to the access
problems faced by gender-variant people. Even in a work about access to safe, acceptable bathrooms, the
barriers to access posed by separation are left undiscussed, and the historically and culturally-situated norm
of gender separation is universalized to cover all times and all places As such, it will be useful to consider
the history of public bathroom provision and of gender separation specifically. This history will allow me

to situate my respondents' contemporary concerns and thoughts within a longer tradition of discussion and
arguments about the topic, which has now mostly been forgotten as a result of the naturalizing process
previously mentioned. It will also illustrate that gender separation has not “prevailed forever” around the
world, not least in the United States.
Kogan (2010) notes that gender-segregated public bathrooms began appearing in the U.S. during
the nineteenth century. However, the law was silent on the practice of separation until 1887, when the
Massachusetts legislature passed a law requiring that workplaces with women workers provide them with
facilities separate from the existing men's bathrooms. By 1920, most states had followed Massachusetts'
lead and enacted similar legislation.
What spurred this burst of bathroom regulation in the U.S.? Kogan argues that the encouragement
for gender separation policies was the “protection” of women workers. Indeed, these laws developed as
extensions of so-called “protective labour legislation” for women. Motivated by Victorian ideology about
the proper role and place of women, legislators were concerned with protecting women's modesty and virtue
– and they sought to do this by re-creating “home-like” private spaces within the public sphere, in the form
of separate women's bathrooms. While women had been working in factories in the U.S. for some time
prior to the enactment of these laws, Kogan argues that a “confluence of anxieties” – around public health,
privacy and modesty, and the rapid growth of technology – convinced policymakers that toilet separation
laws were necessary around the end of the 19th century. Eventually, sanitarians incorporated gender
separation into guides on sanitary science, and legislators adopted the recommendations. Separation began
to appear in sanitary legislation, alongside requirements that actually dealt with concerns of cleanliness and
waste disposal in factory settings. Thus, gender separation found its way into many state laws and over
time, acquired the status of common sense.
Gender separation has become the mostly-unquestioned norm since this period, and our deep
attachment to the practice is thus hidden until separation is threatened in some way. For example, opponents
of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution employed the mendacious claim that the
amendment would mean the forced end of gender separation as a bid to turn public sentiment against it.
This argument was an important part of the antifeminist campaign spearheaded by Phyllis Schlafly (Cahill
1985; Case 2010). Could a similar threat be employed today? If so, why would it be effective? What is it
about the “spectre of shared bathrooms” that made it such an effective scare tactic? Interactionist theories
of gender will assist us in shedding some light on these questions.“The bathroom, as we know it, actually
represents the crumbling edifice of gender in the twentieth century (Halberstam, 1998).

Indeed, as conceptions of gender are being expanded and tested at the edges in increasingly visible
ways, the public bathroom has arguably become a very powerful symbol, one that is often called upon by
claims makers in order to dismiss broader attempts to protect or recognize gender variant people under the
law. This phenomenon is exemplified by the trend of labelling anti-trans discrimination laws as “bathroom
bills” in order to deny gender variant people's rights claims by ridiculing them. When the House of
Commons passed the bill in February 2011, a CBC article noted that the bill faced a “storm of criticism”
from conservative groups, who argued that it would protect sexual predators from prosecution (CBC News
2011). Despite the apparent concern for women's safety, the language employed by many opponents of
gender-neutral bathrooms demonstrates that one of their major fears is about the legitimation of gender
variance and of transgender identities as real, which would potentially threaten the stability of binary
gender. For example, a statement on the aforementioned bill from a Canadian conservative lobby group
called REAL Women asks the rhetorical question, “What about women who don't wish to share the
restroom with a disturbed male?” (Zerbisias 2011).
Dismissal is a typical response to activism specifically targeting bathrooms as well. In her case
study of a University of Massachusetts at Amherst group's efforts to create gender-neutral restrooms,
Gershenson (2010) describes how media refused to take the issue seriously and treated it as a topic of
curiosity and humor. She cites one commentator who argued that the motive behind the Restroom
Revolution group was “desire for attention”, and who went on to claim that “activists behind the movement
are using a petty issue like bathrooms as a medium to throw their lifestyles in the face of every-day
students”.
In response, activists argue that access to public bathrooms is anything but a “petty issue,”
highlighting the difficulties presented by gender segregation to families, people with disabilities, and
especially, transgender people. Because gender-segregated public bathrooms allow for only two genders
and hence set up the possibility of “failing” this gender test, public bathrooms are often sites of violence
against gender non-conforming individuals, who may be the targets of interpersonal gender policing
regardless of which gendered choice they make. This policing can range from stares and unwelcome
comments to expulsion and physical violence.
Browne's (2004) study on masculine women's experiences in public bathrooms demonstrates a

range of gender policing behaviour. Respondents described times at which they were asked if they were in
the “right toilets,” accused of being male trespassers, and ejected from public bathrooms by nightclub staff.
Similarly, Cavanagh (2010) interviewed a wide range of transgender, queer, gay, lesbian, and gender non-
conforming people in Canada and the US and found that fears and experiences of violence in public

bathrooms were common. Participants related stories of beatings, harassment, police arrests, and the
perception that they represent a danger to children in the bathroom.
After a series of campaigns by one such group of activists during the late 2000s, the University of
Washington adopted a policy requiring all newly built on-campus facilities to provide a single-stall gender-
neutral bathroom alongside the more typical multi-stall gender segregated variety. Activists also began
working with administrators to convert existing single stall gender-segregated bathrooms into gender-
neutral facilities. These changes were promoted by activists as being parent-friendly, beneficial for
transgender and gender-variant people, and accessible for people with disabilities (Sekins and Hackett
2007).
According to Jeremy Baeur-Wolf, many of the public battles for transgender students have centered
on the bathrooms they want to use. And according to a new paper, gender-neutral restrooms are the
accommodation transgender and gender-nonconforming college students want most on their campuses. But
there’s much more on their wish lists that would make them feel safe and comfortable.
Researchers at Clark University and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst surveyed more
than 500 transgender and gender-nonconforming undergraduates and graduate students, as well as a handful
of recent graduates. They wanted to know what institutions are offering those students -- what policies and
accommodations are in place -- and how important they are to students. The authors created a list of 17
services and asked participants whether their campus offered them and how significant they were.
Of most important were restrooms, specifically gender-neutral bathrooms in campus buildings.

Despite ranking them No. 1, a little under half of the students -- nearly 45 percent -- surveyed said that their
institutions had the correct facilities. According to Abbie Goldberg, a professor of psychology at Clark and
the lead author of the paper, proper bathroom facilities represent safety for transgender people. Bathrooms
are often where transgender students are improperly called the wrong gender or bullied, she said. One case
in which Goldberg interviewed a student who had the police called while trying to use the bathroom the
student felt comfortable in. While the authors didn’t gather much data from students who attended religious
universities or two-year colleges, Goldberg said these types of institutions tend to lag behind in
accommodations.
Part two of the study was more open-ended. The researchers simply asked how institutions could
do better regarding their transgender populations. Again, a consistent theme that emerged was that students
want proper restrooms. But many also want training, particularly for professors and other staff. One
participant suggested that these types of lessons be mandatory. Participants had specific recommendations
what should be taught, too: terminology for transgender people, including proper pronouns.

According to Nikki Ellis (2014) the number of gender-neutral and multi-stall bathrooms has grown
in just the past few years, at work places, city facilities and on college campuses.
There are more than 150 schools across the United States that have gender-neutral bathrooms,
according to the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s LGBTQ organization, The Stonewall Center.
Suffolk University is now one of those schools.
An all-gender bathroom is, as its name suggests, a bathroom facility that any gender can use. This
obviously contrasts the conventional gender-specific bathrooms that separate men and women. The inside
of these bathrooms include stalls with toilets as well as urinals and vanity areas.
President of Suffolk’s Rainbow Alliance, Amy Kerr, sat down with The Suffolk Journal to discuss
the need for gender-neutral bathrooms at Suffolk and what they mean to our community. Kerr said, “they
offer a way to be inclusive to all.” The bathrooms are also wheelchair accessible.
Kerr shared a personal story, explaining why she holds this issue so dear to her heart. Her brother,
who is transsexual, struggled when he had to do something so seemingly simple as finding a bathroom: a
daily decision that many don’t think twice about. One day, when her brother came to visit the Suffolk
campus, Kerr painstakingly had to express to him that there was no “safe space” here. Her brother would
receive weird looks and was even kicked out of a bathroom once, for choosing the bathroom that he
identified with. Violence, intimidation, harassment and even arrest can all happen to transgender,
genderqueer, and gender nonconforming individuals when they are in the “wrong” bathroom.
Genderqueer is a commonly used term for those who do not identify with social norms that
represent either male or female. Gender nonconforming individuals are similar in that their behaviors may
not match gender norms of male or female, or aren’t in accordance with their assigned sex. Transgender is
when the state of one’s gender does not match one’s biological sex.
Establishing bathrooms like the two gender-neutral, multi-gender bathrooms located on the fourth
floor of the Donahue building, is an important step in the right direction for a forward thinking community.
In addition to the multi-gender bathrooms in Donahue, Kerr also mentioned that several bathrooms
in the Sawyer building and residence halls that contain single stalls have been made neutral, in order to
offer more safe spaces for all genders. There is a full list of the gender-neutral facilities listed under the
“Campus Life” tab of the Suffolk University website. Confusion can accompany change, and this change
is no different. Kerr explained that as anticipated, there has been a lot of confusion and questions
surrounding the new bathrooms, but said that there has been no outwardly negative feedback, to her
knowledge.

As stated by Danielle Corcione, Vermont wants to make going to the bathroom easier for
transgender people, particularly by normalizing gender-neutral bathrooms.
CNN reports Republican governor Phil Scott signed bill H.333 on Friday, May 11, which was
introduced to the state’s general assembly last February. The act provides all single-user bathrooms in
public places, like schools and community centers — which also extends to some private businesses,
including restaurants and store fronts — in the entire state to be gender-neutral. The passing of this policy
means traditional bathroom signs that indicate “male” or “female” are being tossed away, making life much
easier for trans people to use the bathroom.
“Many trans and gender nonconforming people have limited access to bathrooms due to the
harassment, violence, and threat of arrest they experience in both women’s and men’s bathrooms,” Ethan
Lin, director of grassroots fundraising and communications of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, told Teen
Vogue . “Making gender-neutral bathrooms more widely available beyond single stalls ought to be the
ultimate goal because being able to use bathrooms without the threat of violence or harassment is a human
right, not a privilege.”
This recent policy only applies to “single-user toilet facility” — defined in the legislative text as a
“toilet facility with no more than one water closet and one urinal with a locking mechanism controlled by
the user” — or rather, one-person cans. It does not apply to multiple user stalls. However, Rex Butt , interim
executive director of the Pride Center of Vermont, stresses that, “Vermont law has listed public restroom
accommodations as available to transgender people since 2007.” Currently, Vermont and 19 other states as
well as the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination based on gender and sexuality.
In a way, the concept of a gender-neutral bathroom already exists when we’re talking about
designated “family” restrooms. However, they weren’t necessarily made with the intention of trans
inclusion — they were intended for parents with young child of the opposite gender and disabled people
who need assistance from a caregiver of the opposite gender. And don’t forget the original gender-neutral
bathrooms — the one(s) already in your home.
But the takeaway is important: This is a step in the right direction. Many LGBTQ activists,
organizers, and advocates say that this legislation will make the way for even further progress.
“Not everyone falls into the category of ‘man’ or ‘woman,’ which is what makes gender-neutral
restrooms such an important alternative for nonbinary, gender nonconforming, and trans folks looking for
a safe space to literally just use the dang bathroom!” GLAAD campus ambassador C Mandler told Teen
Vogue . “Gender-neutral restrooms are also necessary alternatives towards single-gender bathrooms for

trans folks who don't feel comfortable or safe using public restrooms for fear of harassment from other
bathroom-goers. When homicide rates for trans folks — specifically for trans women of color — climb
higher each year, making sure someone has a safe place to pee, wash their hands, check their makeup, or
do any other normal daily function is absolutely crucial when it comes to keeping trans people safe.”
“More and more young people are defying gender norms,” Eli Erlick, director of Trans Student
Education Resources , told Teen Vogue . “According to a recent Pediatrics survey, nearly 3% of ninth and
eleventh grade students identify as trans or gender nonconforming. However, we are still frequently
harassed while using gendered restrooms. Bills like these will help alleviate some of this persecution while
encouraging future laws to make our lives easier.”
Removing gender markers even from one single-user stall helps remove the gender binary from
daily life. It builds a culture where genderqueer, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people don’t have
to pick a side — male or female — when using the restroom. It normalizes the idea that using the bathroom
shouldn’t be about gender and that people aren’t forced into socially-constructed boxes based on their
genitals. But we shouldn’t of course, stop here.
“The law can't be our first line of defense for ending anti-transgender sentiments,” added Eli. “We
need to create cultural change if we intend to establish a lasting difference for trans people. This means
teaching trans issues in schools, providing educational resources to public and private institutions, and
having easy-to-access information about transgender health and well-being for all.”
The author of the journal “Transgender and the Bathroom” stated that many may wonder what
being a transgender person really is, a lot of people may see or refer to it as someone who has gone gender
transformation, or is confused with who they are. The word transvestite is very much used when referring
to a person who identifies with the opposite gender, the word 'Transvestite' itself originated in 1910 by the
well known German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, who also founded the Berlin institute which was where
the first 'sex change' surgeries took place. 'Transsexual' was not used until 1949, the word 'transgender' not
until 1971, and 'trans not until 1996, but they all refer to the same thing. The idea of being transgender goes
as far back as 1503 BC to the Egyptians. It was believed that their second queen to rule would wear male
clothing, a beard, in order to create signify that she was a king instead of a queen. A few hundred years
later to Rome during 203-222 AD, it was documented that the emperor of that time, Elagabalus, would
wear makeup, having eccentric habits, and even acting like a female prostitute, and even reported to give a
large sum of money to the doctor who could give him female genitalia. Transgender isn't simply a present
issue, it is seen throughout history, yet is still a very versatile topic of conversation, that not many people
in today's society are comfortable with discussing.

Chapter 3
The Methodology
To provide further information in implementing gender neutral bathrooms in the campus, this study
will make use of qualitative research design. It is defined as a research that explains phenomena according
to non-numerical data which are analyzed by means of scientific method of observation. In a wider
viewpoint, it can be as well defined as a type of empirical research into a social phenomenon or human
problem.The researchers clearly defines the research methods used to conduct the studywhich includes the
selection of participants, the data collection process and the process of data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
In this study, the perspective of the different kinds of people in Our Lady of Fatima University –
Quezon City is addressed. The researchers adopted a qualitative approach. (Polit and Hungler, 1993)
describe a research design as an overall plan for obtaining answers to questions under study and handling
difficulties encountered during the study.
3.2 Research Locale
The researchers will conduct the Our Lady of Fatima University–Quezon City for convenience
sampling which relates to the Gender Neutral Bathrooms (Meyer, 1993).
3.3 Population & Sampling
The participants for this study will be the people from Our Lady of Fatima University-Quezon City
whose ages range from fifteen and above (15&above) years old. They will be selected through quota
sampling which means ensures that sample group represents certain characteristics of the population chosen
by the researcher (Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012).
3.4 Research Ethics
Before the researchers start to conduct the interview, the researchers will ask for the permission of
the participants first. The researchers will inform the participants about the purpose of the study and will
also clearly state that the said participants will not be forced to cooperate and their participation is
completely voluntary. Any information that is obtained in connection with this research and that can be
identified with the respondents will remain confidential and will disclosed only with the respondents’
permission or as declared by the law. The records from this study will be kept as confidential as possible.

No individual identities will be used in any reports or publication resulting from this study. All data such
as questionnaires, audio records and summaries will be given codes and stored separately from any names
or other direct identification of participation. Research information will be kept in locked files at all times.
Only research personnel will have access to the data. When the results of the research are published or
discussed in conferences, no information will be included that will reveal the respondents’ identity. If
photographers, videos or audio clip-tape recording of you will be used for educational purposes, the
respondents’ identity will be protected or disguised.
3.5 Instrumentation
A questionnaire for data gathering will be used in this study. The questionnaire has 2 parts. On the
first part is the demographic profile of the respondents that includes the name which is optional, age and
gender. Then, the second partis an essay type of questions, it pertains to some questions about the
respondent’s view about the LGBTQ and the proposed implementation of gender-neutral bathrooms in the
campus. The study will use one kind of instrument to gather data and information significant to the questions
raised in the study.
1. Interview – The interview is a very systematic method by which a person enters deeply into the life
of even a stranger and can bring out needed information and data for the research purpose. (Dr.
Amunuzzama)
3.7 Data Gathering Procedure
For the administration, the set of instructions were read and explained by the researchers.
The participants willfilled-out the basic information and then, evaluated themselves in this 10-item
questionnaire. A debriefing was conducted after their participation was completed to make sure that the
participants were fully informed about the research and not harmed in any way by their experience in
answering the given instruments and questionnaires.
Permission to conduct Giving out set of Administration of tests

Debriefing
research instructions and questionnaire
Figure 2.Data Gathering Procedure of the Study

3.6 Data Analysis
Content analysis was used to analyze the data which was gathered from interviews. The type of
research according to Moore and McCabe (2005), whereby data gathered is categorized so as to be able to
compare. Content analysis helps in date collected being reduced and simplified, while at the same time
producing results. It gives the researchers to structure the qualitative data collected in a way that satisfies
that accomplishment of research objectives.

Chapter 4
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
This chapter is dedicated to present, analyze and interpret the findings of this study. The gathered
data are presented in tables and figures for a simple and better understanding, then analyzed to give light to
the specific problems found in chapter one.
4.1 Demographic Profile of the Respondents
VARIABLES N PERCENTAGE
GENDER Male 5 25%
Female 15 75%
TOTAL 20 100%
Table 1. Age
25%
75%
Male Female
Figure 1. Gender

Table 1 and figure 1 shows that mostly of the respondents are female with a percentage of 75 and
a frequency of 15, while 25 percent of the respondents are male with a frequency of 5.
AGE 16 1 5%
17 1 5%
18 9 45%
19 4 20%
22 3 15%
29 1 5%
35 1 5%
TOTAL 20 100%
Table 2. Age
5% 5%
5% 5%
15%
45%
20%
16 17 18 19 22 29 35
Figure 2. Age

Grounded on the gathered data illustrated in table 2 and figure 2, the participants were composed of
mostly eighteen (18) years of age with 45 percent and a frequency of nine (9), followed by 20 percent of
the respondents whose ages are nineteen (19) with a frequency of four (4), then 15 percent of the
respondents are twenty-two (22) years of age with a frequency of 3 while the four: sixteen (16), seventeen
(17), twenty-nine (29) and thirty-five (35) years of ages are on the same spot with a percentage of 5 and a
frequency of 1.
4.2 Theme Emerged
1. What comes to your mind first you hear of Gender Neutral Bathrooms?
THEME EMERGED STATEMENT

R1: “From the word neutral. Lahat pwede kahit
EQUALITY LGBT”
R6: “Isa sa pinaka- controversial issues ngayon na

i-implement daw nila para magkaroon ng gender
equality so i-implement daw nila para iisang
banyo nalang daw yung gagamitin ng LGBT
communities tsaka ng girls and boys.”
R7: “Equality. CR na kahit anong gender pwede.”
R9: “Bathrooms na pwede yung babae, lalake,

lesbian gay at iba pa.”
R11: “I think it's okay, it’s suitable specially to all

the gender fluid and it's actually anti-
discrimination for all gender, you’re considering
them without actually discriminating them.”
R13: “Para magkaroon ng equality even LGBT.”

R16: “For me, the first thing that comes to my

mind is equality, like for example they are
planning to separate LGBT to the boys and girls,
it is somehow discriminating in their part and
especially to the transgenders because they are
already operated or already assigned to their
sexual preferences, for me Gender Neutral
Bathrooms can help us to be equal, accepting and
at the same time diverse.”
R2: “Pumapasok yung different kinds of gender.”

COMBINATION OF BATHROOMS
R5: ”Kahit sino pwede pumasok.”
R19: “For me, it is the combination of male and

female on one bathroom regardless of Gender
Orientation.”
R20: “To combine the bathrooms of male and

female.”
R3: “Okay lang naman kahit wala, okay lang din

NEUTRAL kahit meron.”
R15: “Okay lang di naman issue saken yun.”
R4: “About sa cr yung may mga boys, girls and

LGBT LGBT na gumagamit.”
R12: “Pinaguusapan dito yung LGBT.”

R8: “In my opinion parang mas okay pa rin kung
separated yung Male tsaka Female.”
DISAGREE

R17: “Mas gusto ko pa yung nakahiwalay yung

bathrooms ng LGBT sa babae at lalake.”
R14: “Di ako sang-ayon, kasi syempre respeto

naman din sa mga totoong babae at lalake.”
R10: “Sa tingin ko parang very new, uncommon
NEW TREND sya, parang pag narinig mo yung idea na yun
“Pwede pala yun?”
R18: “Mas convenience sa mga LGBT.”

CONVENIENCE
2. What are your thoughts about implementing this proposal?
R1: “Para sakin ayaw ko sya, kasi magkaiba

SAFETY dapat yung cr ng lalake sa babae, kasi syempre
malay mo may sakit yung gumamit ng cr, para
bang hindi sya sa sanitized.”
R2: “Para kasing common na sya ngayon tsaka
NECESSARY kailangan talaga kasi big deal na yan ngayon.”
R3: “Mas mapapahalagahan yung mga LGBT.”
EQUALITY AND RESPECT
R5: “Para sa equal nga diba.”
R12: “Sakin agree ako kasi for example, naging

kaklase din kasi ako na member ng LGBT so
syempre nakakaranas sila ng discrimination so I
think maganda na maimplement yan para maging
fair tayo sa kanila.”
R16: “It would help people to be more educated

and to achieve equality.”

R20: “I think it’s a way to give respect for the 3rd

and 4th sexual preference.”
R4: “There’s nothing wrong about it because
AGREE there’s a LGBT community here.”
R13: “Okay lang din naman siguro kung may

disiplina lahat ng gagamit.”
R17: “It’s favorable to all LGBT.”
R18: “Maganda sya, kasi nakikita ko na marami

ng part dito ng LGBT.”
R19: “Well I think it’s okay to implement that

proposal because now we are entering the age of
Gender Neutralization, especially we are already
having gender sensitivity issues. I don’t have any
objections on combining this genders.”
R6: “Kung sa akin hindi ako agree, kasi merong
AWKWARDNESS AND PRIVACY awkwardness tsaka mawawalan ng privacy lalo na
yung mga girls and boys na hindi naman nila
naaccept yung LGBT community so feeling ko
mangkakaroon ng awkwardness.”
R7: “Hindi ako sangayon don, kasi diba parang

kailangan talaga may hati yung sa male tsaka sa
female, tsaka diba sa age natin kailangan may
privacy tayo.”
R9: “Para saken maganda tong proposal na to kasi

diba sa panahon ngayon madami ng LGBT.”

QUESTION #3
R1: “Kapag wala parang magkakaroon ng

DISCRIMINATION AND UNEQUALITY discrimination sa LGBT.”
R4: “Yung iba maarte eh ayaw nila ng LGBT

pumapasok sa cr.”
R5: “Unequality”
R6: “Kung sa LGBT feeling nila hindi sila

tanggap sa community so walang equality.”
R7: “Yung iba ayaw nila, parang dinidiscriminate

nila yung mga pumapasok na LGBT.”
R11: “Actually for the straights di naman sila

affected but the once that are affected is yung mga
LGBT, they want na makuha nila yung comfort
nila sa loob ng school, para maging equal tayo
lahat.”
R12: “Nakakaroon ng discrimination at times

nababastos pa.”
R13: “Confidentiality nabe-break.”

R15: “Di mapiligilan ng mga pilipino na asarin
yung mga LGBT.”
R16: “Di pa din sila magiging open and the

stigma will remain sa mga students na hindi

educated, kapag naimpliment mas matutulungan

yung mga students to be more opened.
R17: “Pag nagcr yung mga LGBT na naglahad na

kung sino talaga sila kadalasan nahuhusgahan
sila.”
R18: “Pag may pumapasok na LGBT sa male or

female bathrooms may magsasabe na “Oy! Bawal
ka dito, bawal ka pumasok dito” parang
unconfortable sila.”
R19: “There’s a chance of discrimination if they

don’t have this kind of bathroom, although its
common to see some members of LGBT using
female and male bathrooms.”
R20: “Today, even we don’t admit it, some

problems arise with this bathroom set-up like for
example: Straight males bullying gay males. For
girls, having lesbian on a female bathroom is okay
but for males, they are more sensitive in this
matter.”
R2: “Nagkakamisunderstanding”
MISUNDERSTANDING
R3: “Pwedeng magkalituhan.”
R8: “I don’t see any problem actually”
NO PROBLEM
R10: “For me parang walang problem”
R9: “Kagaya naming mga babae parang pag may
OFFENDED naccr na bakla sa cr namen parang nakakabastos”
R14: “Wala naman problema”

Question #4
4. Do you think implementing this proposal will benefit you personally? Why or why not?
R1: “Para sakin kapag naimplement sya parang

NO magulo, kasi dapat naman talaga yung cr ng babae
sa lalake magkahiwalay eh.”
R4: “No personally.”
R6: “Kasi hindi naman sya masyadong big deal,

basta ang mahalaga makapag-cr ka.”
R7: “Mas okay na yung ngayon na seperated yung

babae, lalake at LGBT.”
R8: “Okay lang naman sya ngayon eh, so bakit pa

kailangan baguhin?”
R10: “Medyo uncomfortable kung may ibang

gender na gagamit sa cr.”
R14: “Sakin hindi sya makakapagbenifit”

R2: “Parang mas madami ka pang matutunan
YES about respecting each other.”
R3: “Mas papahalagahan yung ibang kapwa

natin.”
R5: “Kasi ako member din ako ng LGBT, so sa

tingin ko makakatulong sakin.”
R9: “Para magkaroon din ng karapatan yung mga

member ng LGBT.”

R11: “I like it, personally. Because I have LGBT

friends I want them to be comfortable.”
R12: “Socially yes theirs benefit to me, because it

teaches me not just to be opened but to have
respect.”
R13: “Para din mapafeel ko din sa kanila na

accepted sila sa society.”
R16: “Ofcourse it will benefit me and all of us in

the LGBT Community, we will feel that we
belong to other genders.”
R17: “Kasi para sa lahat din yun, para sa aming

LGBT, para maiwasan yung discrimination kapag
nagccr.”
R18: “Hindi na ko papasok sa cr na mababastos pa

ako.”
R19: “For me, I can see some benefits somehow,

but more on the LGBT for they’ll feel more sense
of acceptance.”
R15: “Partly”
PARTLY
R20: “Partly, because as a female, we can’t access
the male bathrooms but if there happens to have
Gender Neutral Bathrooms, then I can access it
easily.”

4.3 Summary of Results
1. What comes to the respondent’s mind first when the respondents hear of gender neutral bathrooms?
EQUALITY
“From the word neutral. Lahat pwede kahit LGBT.” R1:1
(From the word neutral. We can all use the same bathroom even the LGBT community.)
“Isa sa pinaka- controversial issues ngayon na i-implement daw nila para magkaroon ng gender
equality so i-implement daw nila para iisang banyo nalang daw yung gagamitin ng LGBT communities
tsaka ng girls and boys.” R6:1
(One of the controversial issues nowadays, saying that they will implement gender neutral bathrooms to
achieve gender equality.)
“Equality. CR na kahit anong gender pwede.” R7:1
(Equality. Bathroom that will allow all the gender to use.)
“Bathrooms na pwede yung babae, lalake, lesbian gay at iba pa.” R9:1
(It allows girls, boys, lesbian, gay and other gender fluid.)
“I think it's okay, it’s suitable specially to all the gender fluid and it's actually anti-discrimination for
all gender, you’re considering them without actually discriminating them.” R11:1
“Para magkaroon ng equality even LGBT.” R13:1
(In order for us to achieve equality including LGBT.)
“For me, the first thing that comes to my mind is equality, like for example they are planning to
separate LGBT to the boys and girls, it is somehow discriminating in their part and especially to the
transgenders because they are already operated or already assigned to their sexual preferences, for me
Gender Neutral Bathrooms can help us to be equal, accepting and at the same time diverse.” R16:1
COMBINATION OF BATHROOMS
“Pumapasok yung different kinds of gender.” R2:1
(All gender can use the bathroom.)

“Kahit sino pwede pumasok.” R5:1
(All genders are allowed to enter.)
“For me, it is the combination of male and female on one bathroom regardless of Gender
Orientation.” R19:1
“To combine the bathrooms of male and female.” R20:1
NEUTRAL
“Okay lang naman kahit wala, okay lang din kahit meron.” R3:1
(It's okay if there’s no gender neutral bathroom, and it's also okay if there is.)
“Okay lang di naman issue saken yun.” R15:1
(It’s okay, it's not an issue to me.)
LGBT
“About sa cr yung may mga boys, girls and LGBT na gumagamit.” R4:1
(It's about a bathrooms that even the LGBT and the non-LGBT can use.)
“Pinaguusapan dito yung LGBT” R12:1
(It talks about LGBT.)
DISAGREE
“In my opinion parang mas okay pa rin kung separated yung male tsaka female.” R8:1
(In my opinion, separated bathroom for boys and girls is better.)
“Mas gusto ko pa yung nakahiwalay yung bathrooms ng LGBT sa babae at lalake.” R17:1
(It is better that LGBT have their own bathrooms.)
“Di ako sang-ayon, kasi syempre respeto naman din sa mga totoong babae at lalake” R14:1

(I disagree, respect to those straight boys and girls.)
NEW TREND
“Sa tingin ko parang very new, uncommon sya, parang pag narinig mo yung idea na yun “Pwede pala
yun?” R10:1
(I think, it’s very new and uncommon, it’s like when you here about this you’ll think “Oh! It can be?
CONVENIENCE
“Mas convenience sa mga LGBT.” R18:1
(It is more convenience to the LGBT.)
SAFETY
“Para sakin ayaw ko sya, kasi magkaiba dapat yung cr ng lalake sa babae, kasi syempre malay mo
may sakit yung gumamit ng cr, para bang hindi sya sa sanitized.” R1:2
(For me, I don’t want to implement this proposal because there should be a separate bathroom for male
to female, there’s an instances that the person used the bathroom with illness and I think it is not
sanitized.)
NECESSARY
“Para kasing common na sya ngayon tsaka kailangan talaga kasi big deal na yan ngayon.” R2:2
(It’s too common nowadays and it is necessary because for them it’s already a big deal.)
EQUALITY AND RESPECT
“Mas mapapahalagahan yung mga LGBT.” R3:2

(The LGBT community is more appreciated.)
“Para sa equal nga diba.” R5:2
(“For equality.)
“Sakin agree ako kasi for example, naging kaklase din kasi ako na member ng LGBT so syempre
nakakaranas sila ng discrimination so I think maganda na maimplement yan para maging fair tayo sa
kanila.” R12:2
(For me, I agree because I’ve encounter some of my classmates that is a member of the LGBT of
course they already had an experience being discriminated so I think it’s good to implement this proposal
for us to be fair to others.)
“It would help people to be more educated and to achieve equality.” R16:2
“I think it’s a way to give respect for the 3rd and 4th sexual preference.” R20:2
AGREE
“There’s nothing wrong about it because there’s a LGBT community here.” R4:2
“Okay lang din naman siguro kung may disiplina lahat ng gagamit.” R13:2
(It’s okay, maybe if the people has a discipline in using bathrooms.)
“It’s favorable to all LGBT.” R17:2
“Maganda sya, kasi nakikita ko na marami ng part dito ng LGBT.” R18:2
(It’s good, because I notice there are many part of the LGBT community here.)
“Well I think it’s okay to implement that proposal because now we are entering the age of Gender
Neutralization, especially we are already having gender sensitivity issues. I don’t have any objections on
combining this genders.” R19:2

AWKWARDNESS AND PRIVACY
“Kung sa akin hindi ako agree, kasi merong awkwardness tsaka mawawalan ng privacy lalo na yung
mga girls and boys na hindi naman nila naaccept yung LGBT community so feeling ko mangkakaroon ng
awkwardness.” R6:2
(For me I disagree, because it’s awkward and there’s no privacy at all specially the girls and boys that
they don’t accept LGBT community, so for me I feel like there’s an awkwardness.)
“Hindi ako sangayon don, kasi diba parang kailangan talaga may hati yung sa male tsaka sa female,
tsaka diba sa age natin kailangan may privacy tayo.” R7:2
(I’m not in favor, because it’s necessary that the bathrooms of the girls and boys are separated and in our
age privacy is important.)
“Para saken maganda tong proposal na to kasi diba sa panahon ngayon madami ng LGBT.” R9:2
(For me it’s good to implement this proposal because nowadays there’s a plenty LGBT.)
DISCRIMINATION AND UNEQUALITY
“Kapag wala parang magkakaroon ng discrimination sa LGBT.” R1:3
(If we don’t have gender neutral bathrooms there's a possibility of discriminating LGBT people.)
“Yung iba maarte eh ayaw nila ng LGBT pumapasok sa cr.” R4:3
(Some people are sensitive when it comes to LGBT people entering male and female bathrooms.)
“Unequality” R5:3
“Kung sa LGBT feeling nila hindi sila tanggap sa community so walang equality.” R6:3
(For the LGBT people they feel unaccepted in our country, so there's unequality.)
“Yung iba ayaw nila, parang dinidiscriminate nila yung mga pumapasok na LGBT.” R7:3
(Some people disagree of using same bathrooms together with LGBT people and because of that they are
discriminating LGBT people.)

“Actually for the straights di naman sila affected but the once that are affected is yung mga LGBT,
they want na makuha nila yung comfort nila sa loob ng school, para maging equal tayo lahat.” R11:3
(Actually for the straights they are not affected but the once that are affected are the LGBT people
because they want also to have comfort inside the school, and for us to be equal in other gender
preference.)
“Nakakaroon ng discrimination at times nababastos pa.” R12:3
(There’s a discrimination and at times there is harassment.)
“Confidentiality nabe-break.” R13:3
(Breaking the privacy of the people who enters the bathroom.)
“Di mapiligilan ng mga pilipino na asarin yung mga LGBT.” R15:3
(Filipinos can’t avoid bullying LGBT people.)
“Di pa din sila magiging open and the stigma will remain sa mga students na hindi educated, kapag
naimpliment mas matutulungan yung mga students to be more opened” R16:3
(They can’t show to the country there true personality and the stigma will remain to those students that
are not educated, If gender neutral bathrooms implement in our country there is a lot of chances to help
the students to be more opened.)
“Pag nagcr yung mga LGBT na naglahad na kung sino talaga sila kadalasan nahuhusgahan sila.”
R17:3
(To those LGBT people who already revealed there true personality they get discriminated and judged by
the straight genders every time they use the bathroom.)
“Pag may pumapasok na LGBT sa male or female bathrooms may magsasabe na “Oy! Bawal ka dito,
bawal ka pumasok dito” parang unconfortable sila.” R18:3
(When LGBT people enters the male or female bathroom, they were saying that they are not allowed to
enter or to use the bathroom, and maybe they are uncomfortable.)
“There’s a chance of discrimination if they don’t have this kind of bathroom, although its common to
see some members of LGBT using female and male bathrooms.” R19:3

“Today, even we don’t admit it, some problems arise with this bathroom set-up like for example:
Straight males bullying gay males. For girls, having lesbian on a female bathroom is okay but for
males, they are more sensitive in this matter.” R20:3
MISUNDERSTANDING
“Nagkakamisunderstanding.” R2:3
(It will have misunderstanding.)
“Pwedeng magkalituhan.” R3:3
(There’s a chance of confusion.)
NO PROBLEM
“I don’t see any problem actually.” R8:3
“For me parang walang problem.” R10:3
(For me there's no problem about that.
OFFENDED
“Kagaya naming mga babae parang pag may naccr na bakla sa cr namen parang nakakabastos.” R9:3
(For the girls we feel sometimes uncomfortable or harassed by the gay people who enters the bathrooms.)
“Wala naman problema.” R14:3
(I don’t see any problem.)
NO
“Para sakin kapag naimplement sya parang magulo, kasi dapat naman talaga yung cr ng babae sa
lalake magkahiwalay eh.” R1:4

(For me, if this bathroom will implement, it's like it's unorganized, because it is right that the girls
and boys' bathrooms are separated.)
“No personally.” R4:4
“Kasi hindi naman sya masyadong big deal, basta ang mahalaga makapag-cr ka.” R6:4
(No, because it's not really a big deal, more important is you can use bathrooms.)
“Mas okay na yung ngayon na seperated yung babae, lalake at LGBT.” R7:4
(The bathrooms now that the girls, boys and LGBT are better.)
“Okay lang naman sya ngayon eh, so bakit pa kailangan baguhin?” R8:4
(The bathrooms today is fine, why the need of changing?)
“Medyo uncomfortable kung may ibang gender na gagamit sa cr.” R10
(It's quite uncomfortable if there'sa different genders using the same bathroom.)
“Sakin hindi sya makakapagbenifit.” R14:4
(It's not beneficial to me.)
YES
“Parang mas madami ka pang matutunan about respecting each other.” R2:4
(It's like you'll learn more about respecting each other.)
“Mas papahalagahan yung ibang kapwa natin.” R3:4
(It will make people more appreciated.)
“Kasi ako member din ako ng LGBT, so sa tingin ko makakatulong sakin.” R5:4
(I am a member of LGBT, so for me, it will benefit me.)
“Para magkaroon din ng karapatan yung mga member ng LGBT.” R9:4
(To give them freedom to be themselves.)
“I like it, personally. Because I have LGBT friends I want them to be comfortable.” R11:4

“Socially yes theirs benefit to me, because it teaches me not just to be opened but to have respect.”
R12:4
“Para din mapafeel ko din sa kanila na accepted sila sa society.” R13:4
(For me to make them feel that they are accepted in our society.)
“Ofcourse it will benefit me and all of us in the LGBT Community, we will feel that we belong to
other genders.” R16:4
“Kasi para sa lahat din yun, para sa aming LGBT, para maiwasan yung discrimination kapag nagccr.”
R17:4
(Because it’s for the all of us, for all the people who’s part of LGBT, to prevent discrimination when
using bathrooms.)
“Hindi na ko papasok sa cr na mababastos pa ako.” R18:4
(I can now freely enter the bathrooms without feeling discriminated.)
“For me, I can see some benefits somehow, but more on the LGBT for they’ll feel more sense of
acceptance.” R19:4
PARTLY
“Partly.” R15:4
“Partly, because as a female, we can’t access the male bathrooms but if there happens to have Gender
Neutral Bathrooms, then I can access it easily.” R20:4

Chapter 5
Discussion
5.1 Conclusion
The researchers conclude that most of the People in Our Lady of Fatima-University agree on
implementing Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in Our Lady of Fatima University-QC. Based on the
respondents’ statements, the respondents prefer to use the same bathrooms that everybody else uses, for it
increases the respondents’ confidence and feeling of safeness, especially for the LGBTQ community
(Reyna, 2017). Requiring the students to use bathrooms that did not match the respondents’ gender
identity or expression put them at risk of bullying and harassment (Gabby, 2017). This includes Physical
Bullying (Carlos, 2017), Verbal bullying (Daniel, 2017), and Sexual Assault (Gabby, 2017). This has
been proven by (Manalastas, 2017), a professor of psychology at the University of the Philippines who
has studied LGBT youth issues, observed “a theme of being highly sexualized and sexually harassed,
especially for the gender non-conforming male students. A member of the Quezon City Pride Council
(Gentoleo, 2017), a city commission designed to enforce LGBT rights protections, observed that LGBT
youth often face considerable pressure from heterosexual, cisgender peers to be sexually active because
the respondents are LGBT. Policies that prevent students from accessing bathrooms consistent with the
respondents’ gender identity exist in post-secondary institutions as well. (Dalisay, 2017) a 20-year-old
panromantic woman at a university in Caloocan, said: Some of the trans women in our support group, the
guards would shout, “Why are you using that restroom? You’re not allowed in there,” which for Dalisay
is disrespectful. Why do people care? People are just putting on makeup, and just want to feel safe when
the people pee. Because there’s a lot of teasing and bullying in the men’s room.” (Marisol D., 2017) a 21-
year-old transgender woman, said that in the university, instructors reported transgender students to the
discipline office for using the “wrong” restroom. That’s why on the OLFU-QC students & staffs
perspective, it’s a must to have Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in the campus to prevent these issues and to
support the rights of the LGBTQ people.

5.2 Framework of the Study
SAFETY
NECESSARY
EQUALITY AND
RESPECT
AGREE
AWKWARDNESS
AND PRIVACY
EQUALITY The Perspectives of DISCRIMINATION

COMBINATION OF the People about AND
BATHROOMS having UNEQUALITY
NEUTRAL Gender Neutral MISUNDERSTAND
LGBT Bathrooms in Our ING
DISAGREE Lady
NO PROBLEM
NEW TREND Of Fatima
CONVENIENCE University-QC OFFENDED
NO
YES
PARTLY
5.3 Recommendations
Based on the generated findings, it is apparent that the number of participants used in this study
was limited and somehow does not entirely represent the population of interest. To address this matter,
future researchers should have a wider amount of responders to see more significant results. Future
researchers should consider a wide range of choices of schools to interview to see significant difference of
perspectives. In addition, the current researchers recommend that the future researchers ought to utilize well
established standardized tests to yield a more valid and reliable results.

5.4 Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank the following persons who assisted to do this research, for
dedicating and sacrificing a lot of time just to finish this. We won’t finish this successfully without each
and everyone’s help.
First, the researchers would like to express deepest gratitude to their professor, Mr. Cleto L.
Dometita who had been really accommodating and patient in guiding them to finish this research.
Second, to the co- researchers, some senior high school students and staffs from Our Lady of Fatima
University-Quezon City, who answered the questionnaires provided and participated in their study with a
lot of patience. They have shown respect and patience while the data gathering is being implemented.
To their families, who supported them throughout our research, for always being there to guide
them and to motivate them.
And lastly, to Almighty God, who have empowered the wisdom, knowledge, and strength that they
needed. Specifically, in times that the researchers felt that they couldn’t make it. The researchers exalt His
name because through His guidance, they are able to successfully finish their research.

References
Baeur-Wolf, J. (2018). More Than Just Bathrooms, Inside Higher Ed.
Kath,B. (2004). “Genderism and the Bathroom Problem: (re)materialising sexed sites (re)creating
sexed bodies.” Gender, Place and Culture 11(3):331-346
Bullit Marque (2015). “Just Let Us Be” Discrimination against LGBT Students in the Philippines
Spencer, C. (1985). Meanwhile Backstage: Public Bathrooms and the Interaction Order
Case, M.A., et al. (2010). “Why Not Abolish Laws of Urinary Segregation?” in Toilet: Public Restrooms
and the Politics of Sharing, Pp. 211-225
Cavanagh, S.L. (2010). Queering Bathrooms: Gender, Sexuality, and the Hygienic Imagination Toronto
CBC News(2011). Transgender protection bill approved by Commons
Cooper, P. and Ruth, O. (1999). Cherished Classifications: Bathrooms and the Construction of
Gender/Race on the Pennsylvania Railroad During World War II
Corcione, D. (2018), Teenvogue: We Need Gender Neutral Bathrooms Everywhere
Easter book, A., (2015) Artefac Magazine: Gender and Sexuality
Ellis, N. (2014), The Suffolk Journal: Gender Neutral Bathrooms at Suffolk Inclusive to All
Gordon, A.R. and Meyer, I.H. (2007). Gender nonconformity as a target of prejudice, discrimination, and
violence against LGB individuals. Journal of LGBT Health Research
Grant, J.M., et al. (2011). Injustice at Every Turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination
Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force.Washington, DC
Kelleher, C. (2009). Minority stress and health: Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
questioning (LGBTQ) young people
Kertzner, et al. (2009). Social and psychological well-being in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: the
effects of race, gender, age, and sexual identity

Kessler, S.J., and Wendy M. (1978). Gender: An Ethnomethodological Account. Chicago, IL
Kogan, T., et al. (2010). “Sex Separation: The Cure-All for Victorian Social Anxiety.” in Toilet: Public
Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, Pp. 145-164
Mateik, T. (2003). Toilet Training. Silvia Rivera Law Project.
Meyer, I.H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations:
conceptual issues and research evidence
Minter, S. and Daley, C. (2003). Trans Realities: A Legal Needs Assessment of San Francisco's
Transgender Communities National Center for Lesbian Rights and Transgender Law Center. San
Francisco
Mottet, L.A. (2003). Access to Gender-Appropriate Bathrooms: A Frustrating Diversion on the Path to
Equality. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 4:739-746
Mustanski, B.S., et al. (2010). Mental health disorders, psychological distress, and suicidality in a diverse
sample of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. American Journal of Public Health
Namaste, V.K. (2000). Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered People. Chicago,
IL.
Sánchez, F.J. and Vilain, E. (2009). Collective self-esteem as a coping resource for male-to-female
transsexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology
Sekins, E. and Hackett, M. (2007). “Safe, Accessible, Gender-Neutral, Parent Friendly Bathrooms: A Call
of Action for the University of Washington
Stotzer, R.L. (2009). Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data. Aggression
and Violent Behavior
Vade, D. (2002). Gender Neutral Bathroom Survey
Wernick, L., et al. (2017): Gender Identity Disparities in Bathroom Safety and Wellbeing among High
School Students, “Journal of Youth and Adolescence.”

West, C. and Zimmerman D. (1987). “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society
Zerbisias, A. (2011). Will 'bathroom bill' get flushed by conservatives?

Appendix I
Permission to conduct Research:

Appendix II
Questionnaire:
Our Lady of Fatima University
#1 Esperanza St., Hilltop Mansion Heights, Lagro, Quezon City
The Perspectives of the People about having
Gender Neutral Bathrooms in Our Lady
Of Fatima University-QC
Name (optional):
Age:
Gender:
1. What comes to your mind first when you hear of Gender Neutral Bathrooms?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix III
25%
75%
Male Female
Figure 1. Gender
Table 1 and figure 1 shows that mostly of the respondents are female with a percentage of 75 and
a frequency of 15, while 25 percent of the respondents are male with a frequency of 5.

5% 5%
5% 5%
15%
45%
20%
16 17 18 19 22 29 35
Figure 2. Age
Grounded on the gathered data illustrated in table 2 and figure 2, the participantswere composed of
mostly eighteen (18) years of age with 45 percent and a frequency of nine (9), followed by 20 percent of
the respondents whose ages are nineteen (19) with a frequency of four (4), then 15 percent of the
respondents are twenty-two (22) years of age with a frequency of 3 while the four: sixteen (16), seventeen
(17), twenty-nine (29) and thirty-five (35) years of ages are on the same spot with a percentage of 5 and a
frequency of 1.

Appendix IV
Curriculum Vitae
Leila Lacerna Magno

L18, B3, Miramonte Park Subd., Brgy 180, Tala, North Caloocan
09999188101
lngrxng@gmail.com
PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth: May 29, 2002

Place of Birth: Mogpog, Marinduque
Age: 16
Gender: Female
Height: 5”4
Weight: 50 kg
Nationality: Filipino
Religion: Born-again Christian
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Secondary
 Our Lady of Fatima University
Hilltop, Lagro Q.C
2018-2019
Grade 11-Present
 Siena College of San Jose

Brgy., Graceville, SJDM Bulacan
2014-2018

Grade 7 - Grade 10
Primary
 Immaculada Concepcion Colleges
Tala, North Caloocan city
2009-2014
Grade 1 - Grade 6
SEMINARS ATTENDED / AFFILIATION
 “Lakbay langit Astro Camp”

Siena College of San Jose
February 10, 2017

Kyla Camille Artiaga

Phase 7, PKG 10, Blk. 24, Lot 1, Bagong Silang, Caloocan City
Contact Number: #09773579493
E-mail Address: camilleartiaga@gmail.com
PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth: March 28, 2001

Place of Birth: Legaspi City
Age: 17
Gender: Female
Height: 4”11
Weight: 43
Religion: Roman Catholic
Secondary
Hilltop, Lagro Q.C
2018-2019
Grade 11-Present
 St. Raphael Academy

Cor. Aguinaldo & Don Buenaventura de Erquiaga Sts. Legazpi City
2014-2018
Grade 7 - Grade 10

Primary
 St. Raphael Academy
Cor. Aguinaldo & Don Buenaventura de Erquiaga Sts. Legazpi City
2009-2014
Grade 1 - Grade 6

Name: Daniel Hosea Baconawa

Adress: Blk 1, L10, Santol street, Plamera Homes, West Fairview, Q.C
Contact Number: #09072300797
E-mail Address: Danielhosea41@yahoo.com
PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth: March 03, 2001

Place of Birth: Quezon city
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Height: 5”11
Weight: 78
Nationality: Half- Korean, Half-Filipino
Secondary
Lagro Hilltop, Q.C
2018-2019
Grade 11 - Present
 The Lord of Grace Christian School

Diamond street, West Fairview, Q.C
2014-2018
Grade 7 - Grade 10

Primary (Elementary)
 The Lord of Grace Christian School
Q.C
2006-2014
Grade 1 - Grade 6

Name: Louies Angelo M. Dela Rosa

Blk. 6, Lot 5, Brgy. Graceville, SJDM Bulacan
09474435088
E-mail Address: delarosa482001@gmail.com
PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth: April 08, 2001

Place of Birth: Sta. Maria, Bulacan
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Height: 5”10
Weight: 57
Nationality: Half- Spanish, Half-Bread
Secondary
Lagro Hilltop, Q.C
2018-2019
Grade 11-Present

Lagro Hilltop, Q.C
2014-2018
Grade 7 - Grade 10

 United Methodist Corporative Learning System
Caloocan
2006-2014
Grade 1 - Grade 6

Butzcholo G. Dizon
Blk. 02, Lot 13, Phase I-A, Kasiglahan Village, San Jose Rodriguez,
Montalban, Rizal
09163344216
butzcholodizon@gmail.com
PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth: August 20, 2001

Place of Birth: Quezon city
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Height: 5”6
Weight: 55
Nationality: Half-Kastilla, Half-Filipino
Secondary
Lagro Hilltop, Q.C
2018-2019
Grade 11-Present
 Kasiglahan Village National High school

Montalban, Rizal
2014-2018
Grade 7 - Grade 10

 Jesus Christ Save Global Outreach
Cubao,
2006-2014
Grade 1 - Grade 6

Lovely Jane G. Escuyos

464 Camia street, Malamia Tala, Caloocan City
09127182814
Escuyoslovely46@gmail.com
PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth: December 01, 2001

Place of Birth: UDMC, Manila
Age: 17
Gender: Female
Height: 5’
Weight: 498 kgs.
Religion: Christian/ Born Again
Secondary
Lagro Hilltop, Q.C
2018-2019
Grade 11-Present
 Christ’s Achievers Montessori

Blk. 23, L 1-3, Graceville Subd., Muzon City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan
2014 – 2018
Grade 7 - Grade 10
Primary
 Christ’s Achievers Montessori
Blk. 23, L 1-3, Graceville Subd., Muzon City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan

2008 – 2014
SEMINARS ATTENDED / AFFILIATION
 Psycho-Spiritual Seminar
SJB Auditorium, OLFU Quezon City(2019)
 Cell Leaders Training

Jesus Is Alive, Loma De Gato (2017)

Jolina G. Lumactod
Blk 29 Lot 16 Towerville Minuyan Proper, City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan
09751405749
jolinalumactod0412@gmail.com
PERSONAL PROFILE
Date of Birth: January 24, 2001

Place of Birth: Bulacan
Age: 18
Gender: Female
Height: 5’1
Weight: 41kg
Secondary
Lagro Hilltop, Q.C
2018-2019
 Ebenezer Christian Academy Inc.
Quirino Highway, Sto. Cristo, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan
2014-2018
Grade 7 to Grade 10
 Towerville Elementary School
Towerville City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan
2008-2014
Grade 1 to Grade 6

The Perspectives of The People On Having Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in Our Lady of Fatima University-Q.C

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Perspectives of The People On Having Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in Our Lady of Fatima University-Q.C

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Perspectives of the People in Our Lady of Fatima University-Q.

List of Tables iii

1.0 The Problem and its Background 2

Statement of the Problem 3

Scope and Limitation 4

2.0 Review of Related Literature 5

2.1 Local Literature 5

2.1.2 Gender Neutral Bathrooms 5

2.1.3 Supporting LGBT Rights 6

2.2 Foreign Literature 6

2.2.2 Gender Neutral Bathrooms 6-14

3.1 Research Design 14

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

3.2 Research Locale 14

3.3 Population and Sampling 15

3.4 Research Ethics 15

3.6 Data Analysis 16

4.0 Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data 17

4.1 Demographic Profile 17

4.2 Theme Emerged 19-24

4.3 Summary of Results 24-31

5.2 Framework of the Study 33

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 2

Figure 4: Framework of the Study 33

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Appendix I: Permit to Conduct Research 36

Appendix II: Questionnaire 37

Appendix III: Figures 38

Appendix IV: Curriculum Vitae 39-45

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

The Problem and its Background

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Gender Neutral Comfortably of

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

1.2 Conceptual Framework

1.3 General Objectives

1.4 Statement of the Problem

University-QC approves on having Gender Neutral Bathrooms?”

Specifically it sought to answer the following questions:

1. Demographic profiles of the respondents in terms of:

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

1.7 Scope and Limitation

1.8 Definition of Terms

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Review of Related Literature

2.1 Local Literature

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

2.1.2 Gender-Neutral Bathrooms

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

2.1.3 Supporting LGBTs rights

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

and development-appropriate reproductive health education to adolescents which shall be taught by

2.2 Foreign literature

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

2.2.2 Gender Neutral Bathrooms

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

OUR LADY OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL