Commuter trains should have segregated carriages for both ladies and homosexual gentlemen
Debate Rounds (2)
That's why you will now find women-only carriages (passenger cars) on many commuter (mass transit) trains. This has resulted in a marked drop in number of cases of sexual molestation of women on trains. 
Great news for the women and ladies-only carriages should be introduced in cities across the world, but what about the men?
Because the women will have their own carriages the men will be squeezed together tighter than ever in the remaining carriages, thus giving gay perverts the opportunity to touch up male passengers for a cheap thrill.
Obviously, straight men don't want to be fondled by a gay sex-pest any more than women want to be groped by a heterosexual sex-pest.
So, what's the solution? Put the gays in with the women? No, this would't work because the straight sex-pests might pretend to be gay in order to get into the women's carriage to feel them up.
No, the answer is to introduce both ladies-only and homosexual gentlemen-only carriages. The gay men would be as happy to travel in their own segregated carriage as the women would be in theirs because they would be in a carriage full of other gay men who would all be touching each other up (homosexual men are very promiscuous and like that sort of thing).
So we can see it makes sense for rail companies to introduce segregation on commuter trains with ladies-only and homosexual gentlemen-only carriages.
To start off, Pro states: "[...] ladies-only carriages should be introduced in cities across the world [...]." Unfortunately, this is not an efficient solution to this problem, as this problem is very centralized in Japan. In the US (as an example) this is not an issue for multiple reasons. 1. The trains are not as over crowded, here in the US. 2. Men are not as inclined to touch a women inappropriately in the US, and 3. Women do not hold similar cultural values as Japan, and therefore are more inclined to report an incident, or they will blatantly tell the person to stop, and make a scene, which will allow others to assist her. To operate trains like this world wide would serve to only harm commuters, as families would not be allowed to travel together, getting on a train would be a huge hassle, and American men (for sake of example) would be viewed as sexual deviants which would be unfair, and untrue.
Pro goes on to state that straight men will be subject to the same harassment that women were if the homosexual men are also not moved to their own train car. Pro suggests the solution is to make two special train cars. One for women, and one for homosexual men. First off, who would be there to enforce who goes into what carriage? If you add security to monitor who gets on what carriage, why cant you add security to monitor the men on a train to make sure they are keeping their hands to themselves? Pro then goes on to say:
"The gay men would be as happy to travel in their own segregated carriage as the women would be in theirs because they would be in a carriage full of other gay men who would all be touching each other up (homosexual men are very promiscuous and like that sort of thing)."
(Which, first of all is a disgusting, and insulting generalization)
Pro states that, because the carriage is full of gay men touching each other, they wouldn't have an issue with it. This is entirely false. Just like everyone else, gay men don't want to be touched while on their way to work/school etc. Just because they share the same sexual orientation, doesn't mean they are open to being groped by anyone at anytime. If this were the case, then straight men, and straight women shouldn't be separated, because according to your logic, they shouldn't mind it due to them being the same sexual orientation, correct? Also, you state that "homosexual men are very promiscuous and like that sort of thing" which is stated by you as some sort of fact, but without citation. This comment is first of all an insulting generalization, and entirely false. Just because a man shows sexual interest in another man, does not mean they are "into that sort of thing."
On this point, why would we not be separating homosexual women? What if they get on the women only carriage, and grope them, what then? If you are going to separate homosexual men, you have to separate homosexual women. So when a train arrives, the process would turn into a treasure hunt trying to:
find the homosexual carriage.
then the homosexual carriage for your gender.
or if you're straight, you have the find the straight carriage.
and then the appropriate gender as well.
This concept is ridiculous, and it does not make sense for rail companies to introduce these concepts onto commuter trains as Pro suggests.
Just to clarify, in Japan women don"t have to travel in the women-only carriages and I am not suggesting they should be forced to elsewhere. The same principle applies to homosexual men. It will be their choice. Therefore there will be no reason why families cannot travel together, although commuter trains are normally only used by workers.
Regarding enforcement, society enforces the rules just as ladies use ladies public toilets and gentlemen use gentlemen"s public toilets.
Please do not underestimate the influence of the Japanese, by the way. in the 1970's 'Made in Japan' stamped on a product indicated cheap and shoddy merchandise but these days most cars and electronic consumer devices sold worldwide are made in Japan, and they have a very good reputation. Furthermore, Japanese restaurants, takeaways and karaoke bars are now ubiquitous in many Western cities. So, although Western men are not currently as predisposed to feel up young women on trains as their Japanese counterparts, it is only a matter of time before they do.
Also, trains are just as a crowded in cities such as London as they are in Tokyo, and with the increase in the cost of fuel, use of mass transit in the US, American cities will surely follow soon.
Regarding my "disgusting, and insulting generalization" I accept that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations when debating but I did so because I hadn"t done any research. That's because I thought it was common knowledge that gay men are promiscuous. Nevertheless, I now have the facts to hand to prove my point. According to the US Government: "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States," and "in the United States, HIV is most commonly transmitted through specific sexual behaviours". To spell it out, if gay men weren"t having unprotected sex with each other on an indiscriminate and wholesale basis the spread of AIDS would be most prevalent in intravenous drug users and prostitutes. [1,2]
Finally, there should be no confusion getting on and off trains with different carriage types: on the London Underground there used to be four classes: First Class Smoking; Second Class Smoking; First Class Non-Smoking and Second Class Non- Smoking; and everyone managed just fine.
I would first like to start off my addressing your point that the Japanese have such a strong influence, that eventually, groping women on trains will spill over into other countries because Japan is well known for starting trends. The examples you use are cars, which civilized nations use as their most reliable form of transportation, and restaurants, where people go to enjoy their favorite type of food. I don't see how something like groping young women on a train could spill over into other cultures, as it's not something that many people consider doing as a good, or useful thing. Just as you said, society enforces the rules, and thus society would continue to prevent these acts, as they currently are doing. The reason it's widespread in Japan is because they have a different cultural outlook on reporting sexual harassment. It makes them feel weak, and down on themselves. Over in other modernized countries, this is not the case. "[...] civilization is not something absolute, but [...] is relative, and [...] our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes." So the idea that Japan has such a strong influence, that even their sexual crimes will follow suit in other countries, is far fetched.
Now, in regards to your response to my points about the homosexual men trains, it would seem that this part of your debate is taking a turn toward more of a gay bashing debate, and, while I would have no issue debating against you with that as well, it is not quite the topic of this argument, so I wouldn't want people to be swayed by that in the voting.
Finally, for your last points about finding the correct carriage, you make a very valid point about smoking vs. non-smoking, and the different classes. However, I would like to point out that smoking back then was not as detailed as what we are debating. What we are asking each other, is if separating by sexual orientation AND gender, would be at all confusing. Absolutely there are similarities to generalized segregation with smoking, and gender, but sexual orientation, and sex are not as cut and dry, and easy to walk around with. If you are a gay man, or a transgender women often announcing this to the public is not easy, since many of these people struggle to announce it to anyone at all.
*39 percent [of LGBT people] said they"ve been rejected by a family member or close friend because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
*30 percent [of LGBT people] said they have been physically attacked or threatened
*58 percent [of LGBT people] said they have been the target of slurs or jokes
Therefore, getting on a train and selecting the appropriate carriage, may prove to be very difficult for some, and if others are not too afraid to step onto that train, then what about the possibility of hate crimes? You stated that society would be the only ones controlling the trains, so what if a hate crime occurs on a late night train with nobody on. Then you have an epidemic on your hands, all because a few pervy guys in Japan couldn't keep their hands to themselves.
 Franz Boas 1887 "Museums of Ethnology and their classification" Science 9: 589 [Cultural Relativism]
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.