The Divide Between Space and People: “Othering” through Gender and Sexual Identity

This essay will analyze three approaches to describing “othered” spaces. In order to critically examine these approaches, we must first understand the concept of “othering” which is described by Merriam-Webster as “... as simple as speaking of a group of people as ‘them’ in relation to another's ‘us,’ or even putting the definite article the in front of a label” (Can “other” be used as a verb, 2016). Specifically we will look at how space has been restricted in regards to gender and queer identity. Through this essay we will develop a deeper understanding of “othered” spaces in an effort to learn the necessity of intersectionality in all spaces.

It is important to note that I am writing this through a white, female, and hetereosexual lens. Although I am not able to relate to some of the topics included in this essay, it is important for others with similar limited lenses to engage in these discussions. The ability to successfully engage in the following texts will allow individuals that lack similar experiences to understand what people who are “othered” experience in public spaces and identify the importance of an inclusive space.

Gendered and Queer Spaces Kneeshaw discusses the “gendered nature” of space in reference to an urban setting. Within cities, there are many contributing factors to a city cited as being experienced in a gendered way: segregated labor market, transportation, gender based violence, responsibility for unpaid labor/caregiving, and use of free time (Kneeshaw, 2018). However, an important point lies within her argument that is relevant to understanding the impact of a gendered space argument. Although Kneeshaw makes relevant examples regarding the ways in which urban settings are gendered, she concludes her essay with ways in which design can be “spaces for women” (Kneeshaw, 2018). Her argument is problematic because in an attempt to break down ways in which public spaces are gendered against women, she is “othering” those individuals who do not identify with a specific gender and/or who may be gender fluid.

Although her concept of feminist urban planning sounds progressive on the surface, it may actually be more detrimental for the development of inclusive cities down the road. Suppose these cities are transformed to provide a more equal environment for women - would this process not be yet another way in which a group of people is left out of the conversation? In designing a space to combat the male dominated environment, we are pitting one gender against another as opposed to recognizing ways in which an area can be free from gender completely. If the goal is to design space in such a way that includes groups who are “othered” then we must not forget individuals who do not identify on one side or the other of the gender spectrum. It is important to note here that I am taking away from the relevant points Kneeshaw makes regarding the lack of consideration for women in public spaces. I am, however, urging for this perspective to dive into a deeper analysis of what a universal design should look like. In an effort to explain my critical perspective, it is important to examine a paper discussing the function of school toilets. Consider the following statement:

“Furthermore, there is a heterosexual assumption within any (un)acknowledgement of children’ s sexuality. Using the example of changing rooms, Paechter writes, ‘ once we start to segregate them to change for PE, they learn that male and female bodies, when unclothed, are to be kept separate’ (315). Binary gendered toilets teach a similar lesson: that there are two genders that are polar opposites to one another and must be kept separate when unclothed” (Slater et al., 2016).

Although this quote analyzes gender in a setting different from that of Kneeshaw’s article, the same concept is applicable - why should we assume that modifying spaces for the female body is good enough? If the goal in restructuring space is to include a group who has been “othered” then we should push for an even more inclusive approach for all individuals, regardless of their gender and/or sexual orientation. Pavka writes that “queer space or queer architecture is… a performative strategy to challenge the behaviours, rules, expectations and situations framed by the built environment” (Pavka, 2020). Pavka’s article brings to light the importance of examining space through a variety of strategies in an effort to achieve the goal of public spaces being for the entire public.

Another way in which the Slater et al. argument challenges the ideas set forth by Kneeshaw is by identifying the need to consider a younger age group, children. The ability to creatively engage with children to understand their experiences of school toilets would help to provide a more nuanced understanding of how these experiences impact identity (Slater et al., 2016). The conversation surrounding “othered” spaces is often written from a perspective only considering the age groups of young adults onward. The comfort of many publications in exclusively acknowledging these groups suggests that the experiences of children are not relevant enough to consider in urban planning. Here we reach another dilemma: how can a space for everyone if age is not a topic of discussion?

Throughout this essay I have drawn on the texts of Kneeshaw, Slater et al., and Pavka to illustrate the complex ways in which spaces are “othered.” It is not enough to only consider women in the redesign of urban areas. Although these issues are relevant and hold merit for the issues that many women face, settling for this solution would be detrimental to an entirely different group of people. I would venture to say that if feminist activists and scholars become comfortable with the ideas of space design for women, they will be solving one solution only to create a space which “others” a different group within society. It is within this argument that intersectionality serves as a method to inform exclusionary practices. However, here lies the challenge: at what point do the ideas of universal inclusivity clash with the reality of what our architects, policy makers, and discussion facilitators are able to achieve? In supporting universal inclusivity is it inevitable that someone will be left out and if so, how do activists/architects combat this? Although I do not have the answers to these questions, they further support the notion that we have much to learn from various narratives and our work as advocates for inclusive spaces is far from over.

References

• Can “other” be used as a verb? (2016). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/other-as-a-verb

• Pavka, E. (2020) "What do we mean by queer space?" Azure Magazine Online Edition.

• Slater, J., Jones, C., & Procter, L. (2018). School toilets: Queer, disabled bodies and gendered lessons of embodiment. Gender and Education, 30(8), 951–965.

• Kneeshaw, S. (2018). Gender sensitive public space? Placemaking and spatial justice through the perspective of gender. URBACT