Shall Boys Live with Girls? Gender-Neutral Housing and the Evolution of Dorm Living

College housing authorities have been less obliging when it comes to a roommate's gender. The majority of college housing is divided on the basis of biological sex – men share rooms with men and women with women. The system makes sense. We are split up and categorized by this traditional gender binary from the day our respective obstetric nurses put blue or pink caps on our newborn heads, and the convention extends throughout society from locker room divisions to M/F check boxes on forms to differences in how we dress and wear our hair. (Well, exclude my picture at the top of this page.)

When it comes to sex, things have traditionally gotten explicit – if it ain't one, it's the other – but there is a growing appreciation, especially on progressive college campuses, that the binary nature of biological sex is inadequate. Given the realities of transgenderism and questioned gender identities, many favor gender-neutral housing as a way to do away with the rigidity of traditional single-sex rooms and foster an inclusive atmosphere that embraces any roommate combination. One can live with a man, woman, man trapped in a woman's body, woman trapped in a man's . . . you get the idea.

There was a day when it was unthinkable to have mixed dorms. Now they are a staple of nearly every college in America, and I imagine they meet little resistance these days. Next came the debate over mixed floors. Now it's the dorm room. I hope that one day we will look back on the gender-neutral rooming debate with the same sense of outdatedness we see in single-sex dorms.

According to the Boston Globe, some 30 colleges across the country offer gender-neutral housing, and most of those are predictably liberal schools such as Oberlin and Wesleyan (which is rumored to offer a clothing-neutral dorm as well). The gender-neutral housing movement has recently piqued the interest of many college campuses (here's Harvard, for example) and operates on a platform of fairness and inclusion. People should be able to live with those they feel most comfortable with and identify with, period. Although gender and transgender identity are important parts of the gender-neutral movement, there is more to it. If someone were to feel more comfortable living with a member of the opposite sex because of sexual orientation, for example, they too would be able to do so. It's generally a question of compatibility, so if a male and female student were simply great friends and confident they would make great roommates, why shouldn't they be able to share a dorm room?

Here's how gender-neutral housing would work, as I see it. First, remove gender distinctions from the housing lottery. By desegregating the housing lottery – the dreaded and pressure-filled dorm-room-selection process students go through at the end of each year – no one would be forced to live with a member of the opposite sex as a freshman, when one's rooming situation is awkward enough. Although there are certainly horror stories of housing lottery sign-ups gone horribly wrong in which complete strangers end up having to live together, there would be a guarantee: no one would be forced to live with a member of the opposite sex. It would be an option available to all, but imposed on no one.

A gender-blind housing lottery would mean that gender-neutrality would be extended to any and all rooms on campus and not just a collection of dorms or floors. To relegate gender-neutrality to one area of campus would constitute segregation in the name of desegregation and would run completely counter to the movement's mission of inclusivity over stigma. To do so would physically create an unnecessary and uncomfortable distinction between those who choose to live with members of the opposite sex – for whatever the reason – and those that don't. That's not to mention the awkwardness for tour guides: "And here is West Dorm, where those questioning their gender identity now live. To your left, the memorial rock garden . . ."

My college, Bowdoin, is without a gender-neutral housing policy, although it is certainly the subject of much debate. One way we as a school try to step gingerly through the prickly brambles of gender-neutrality is by offering exemptions to any who ask for them. Want to share a bedroom with a member of the opposite sex? Sure, live with whomever your gender-identity-questioning self desires! (But you have to ask for it.) As with gender-neutral dorms, this exemption policy is a case of good intentions that woefully miss the point. Sure, students can get a gender-neutral living situation, but the fact that they must approach the college's bureaucratic housing office and submit a reason and request means that applicants are forced to "out" themselves as transgender or questioning of their gender identity to complete strangers. A comfortable living situation comes at the price of a supremely uncomfortable and uncalled-for conversation with the Residential Life office.

A gender-neutral room shouldn't be the light at the end of a bureaucratic tunnel of questionnaires and awkwardness; it should be a no-stigma, no-questions-asked effort, and a reasonable offer of an agreeable living situation. Residential Life staffers at Bowdoin – bless their hearts – say they have never denied a rooming exemption request, but that just begs the question, why even have the exemption? The openness is there, the tolerance is there, but it comes only after jumping through a ring of inappropriateness and inconvenience before a bureaucratic body. A simple assurance that students feel comfortable with a living situation that fits their lifestyle should be a guarantee at every school. Hell, we pay enough for it.

What exactly are the colleges protecting against by keeping their dorm rooms gender-segregated? Is it a question of sex, because the gender of one's roommate is certainly no indication of one's sexuality or sexual activity. Relationships can occur between (or among) any roommates, regardless of their gender. And yes, some couples would probably elect to live together and then face a dicey situation should their relationship go sour, but my guess is that most college-age kids recognize the risks of living with a significant other and would continue to live apart. (Although, a shared room would, at the very least, do away with the dreaded Sunday morning walk of shame.)

In all seriousness, implementing gender-neutral housing hurts no students but helps those who feel uncomfortable with single-sex rooms. The system would be completely voluntary – no one would be forced to live with a member of the opposite sex – so for most it would be standard male-male, female-female rooming while a small group of others would choose to opt to live with members of the opposite sex. Those who like the way things are would see no change, and those who are unsatisfied would see an improvement in their living situation.

If you were to ask, say, the 19th century British thinker John Stuart Mill what he thought, he would stroke his muttonchops in a moment of brief contemplation and then point you to his "Greatest Happiness Principle," which states that something is good if it brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. Sure, it's utilitarian, but it's right: gender-neutral housing would give everyone the potential to be happy with their rooming situation. And there is no feeling like returning to a place that makes you feel genuinely comfortable, content, and safe. Dorothy meant it when she clacked those ruby slippers and said through a close-eyed smile that "there's no place like home." Even if home means the insufferable plucking of a roommate's ukulele (or three of them), you can't beat it.