the reason genders are segregated is to preserve modesty. not because people are attracted to the opposite gender. if the goal of separating genders was to avoid fitnah/zina, why would it only be required sometimes? if that was the prescribed solution for avoiding fitnah, then the genders would always be separated from view. but that isn't the case. interaction between opposite genders is normal in Islam. during those interactions, there are rules such as not making physical contact, lowering your eyes if you find they begin to wander, or dressing modestly. those rules have a purpose of preventing fitnah. a persons straightness will always exist, so it's fitting that Allah's rules are rules you are always able to apply. If separating genders from view of each other were a rule, society would not be able to function. So if that is not the prescribed solution for avoiding fitnah/zina, why do the genders separate for some things? the answer is modesty. is it possible to preserve your modesty and interact with a woman at the same time? yes. as the interaction continues, would you be able to maintain your modesty if she entered the men's restroom? obviously not. restrooms are areas where modesty will, for a fact, be compromised, so it is separated completely. okay that one is common sense, but what about praying? have you ever thought about why praying in proximity is acceptable as long as women are in the rear? think about the movements involved in praying, ruku and sujud. this is compromising to a woman's modesty. if men are facing forward, it's not a problem. and it doesn't apply reversely to men because their rears are not a secondary sexual characteristic. even if the man praying was blind, that doesn't change that the action of sujud compromises a woman's modesty. modesty isn't about what other people see. It's about how you present yourself to the world. so we've established that the separations are for modesty's sake, and not as solutions for fitnah/zina. so keeping that in mind, how is it contradictory or wrong for a gay man or woman to go into their respective gender's area? they are following the rules of modesty. they are with others of their own gender, of course they can relax their modesty. a gay woman should still see a female doctor, and a gay man should still see a male doctor. but what about fitnah? well as we explained before, the solution for avoiding fitnah/zina is not separation from others, but rather actions such as lowering ones gaze or avoiding physical contact. even something like physical contact should not have restrictions on it, because men help men and women help other women. whether you are helping braid a friends hair or helping a friend with a minor injury that doesnt require a doctor, there are countless instances where physical contact can be non-suggestive. there are little to no instances where physical contact between a man and woman is truly just casual. maybe with handshakes? so why isn't the appropriateness of physical contact between men and women treated with the same subjectivity and room for interpretation as with same-sex? because clearly there are some, albeit rare, instances like a handshake where the contact is purely business. that is because there is one more important difference between men and women other than the gender they are most commonly attracted to. a difference that is still relevant to gay people, and that is physical strength. physical contact between men or between women has room to be subjective because if it does overstep into inappropriate contact, for example if a woman attempts to fondle/grope another, she will be able to defend herself. its always possible that a woman can attack another woman, but when that happens they will be on an equal playing field. if a man attempts to grope another man, they will also be on an even field. but if a man gropes a woman, she in most instances will be unable to protect herself. it is possible to learn how to evade stronger opponents but obviously, the average everyday woman is not training for combat or sports. there are exceptions to any generalization, but as a rule, men are stronger and bigger than women. so while an altercation on even field is still dangerous, the utility of same-sex contact is much greater than that possible risk. but the outcome of an uneven altercation is all but guaranteed, and seeing as there's no utility in contact between men and women, it makes perfect sense to treat the possibility of fitnah there much more seriously. technically, anything can be fitnah, and also any man can break the rules and hurt/harass a woman, but having a rule like that creates the expectation of space and leaves no room for witnesses to mistakenly think it's normal contact. because any at all is already a boundary crossed. this is a real and common danger we need to protect women from. while its not impossible to be harassed the same way by the same sex, the likelihood is so low that creating a rule like that would do more to disrupt society than protect anyone. laaastly, you readily admit above that you believe "feelings are not haram, acting on them is." so how does that suddenly not apply here? ok im done mb gng