A "Liberal" ICU? ? From a Former ICU Dorm Resident ?

ICU graduate

【The article below is the same as the article that appears in the twelfth issue of the CGS Newsletter.】

With plans for the construction of a large-scale dormitory currently underway at ICU, I would like to discuss the issue of ICU dorms in the light of my own experience.
Up until two years ago, I lived in a women's dormitory on campus. All the rooms were shared, and men were only permitted entry to the communal area on the first floor. If it was necessary for any man to go upstairs (such as a university employee) one of the dorm residents would have to call out "a man is coming upstairs!" before letting them through. This was one of the many dorm rules that I simply couldn't get used to. Even the hope of preventing sex-related crimes cannot justify the treatment of people as if they were potential sex offenders. One could even argue that this prohibition of "men" reflects a simplistic assumption that "problems (only) occur between the two sexes."

The assumption that "same sexes" don't cause problems is also reflected in the way dorm residents are stripped of their individual privacy. For example, our bath was communal. At that time, I was what you might call a "normal girl"; a cisgender (a non-transgender) and a heterosexual, oblivious to my privileged status. However, I was very uncomfortable with the act of undressing in front of other people, regardless of their sex. But this discomfort was gradually tamed under the pressure of having to share my personal space because "we are all dorm mates." Those who can't get used to this style of cohabitation that separates "men and women" with no consideration for personal privacy are made to feel that they do not, or should not, want to live in the dorms at all.
In my opinion, what the university truly wants to prohibit through the myth of safety through the separation of the sexes is interaction, namely, "sex" (of course, same-sex intercourse is not even considered). Then why not just clearly state that "Sex is Prohibited in the Dormitories"? The "division of the sexes" rule is therefore a detour, a wordless enforcement of a ban on sexual intercourse. However, this rule has resulted in a system that excludes people who are not cisgender or heterosexual from the dormitories. Despite the university's efforts, this ban on sex, with regard to the dorms, is currently unsuccessful (although, in my opinion, people should be free to have any kind of sex whenever, or wherever, they wish, as long as they don't harm others).
The general opinion of the so-called majority may be that they do not want to be exposed to the sight of the "opposite sex". This wish should be respected, but should it be a dorm's responsibility to do so? Should it not, as in the case of showing a friend of the same gender to one's room, be negotiated between room-mates? Can ICU be justified in denying us this right and standardizing a ban that effectively excludes one's entire being?
I cannot think of any legal reason why the sexual activities of university students should be prohibited, but the University may argue the need to prevent sexual violence. Even so, it is also necessary for the University to clearly show what is expected from students, and what is to be prohibited. Both sex and sexual violence are rampant on campus. During my time at an ICU dorm, questions of defining "women", "men", or "sex" were never discussed among dorm residents or between us and the University. It is hoped that the University will seriously consider the ridiculous contradiction of their so-called liberal stance and their avoidance of any discussion regarding sex.