Millions of people, like myself, grow up comfortably middle class, and yet have no problem adapting to dorm life. What is objectionable about expecting people who receive free housing to live under the same conditions as students? Are students lesser humans?
And where exactly do you draw the line, how high standard does free housing have to have? Middle class? Upper middle class?
The issue is not your ability to adapting in a situation where you're already engaging in privilege, but about whether it is reasonable to lower standards for the poor.
No, students are not lesser humans, but neither are poor people forced to deal with the effects of any policy changes to allow the lowering of expected standards of the housing provided.
Many places - such as in Norway where I grew up - the provisioning of housing units without bathrooms is only permitted in very limited situations exactly because it's consider unjustified to create a situation where even private landlords can exploit lack of choice for the poorest to coerce them into tolerating situations we'd not want to impose on others.
As for students, checking student housing for Oslo now, the largest amount of sharing of bathrooms I can find in "dorms" is sharing with one other person in the very smallest housing that is explicitly not considered suitable for e.g. couples or families. But in Norway at least, the norm is also not to push students into dorms, and people don't live in them for the long term.
So I expect that housing for the poor should at least not be worse than the standards we've come to see as the bare minimum to consider a housing unit intended for the long term to be habitable. Yes, the standards are lower elsewhere, especially for students, largely on the basis that it's a choice that often involves a good deal of privilege, and when/where dorms are expected or required it is often at least sold as part of the socialisation. In places where dorms are often expected, you're free to not apply to those universities or pick ones with higher standard dorms without losing the ability to go to university.
Poor people often face a significantly reduced opportunity to realistically choose without facing sleeping rough, and the notion that they have a genuine choice itself tends to come from a highly privileged attitude.
> The issue is not your ability to adapting in a situation where you're already engaging in privilege, but about whether it is reasonable to lower standards for the poor.
What does this mean? It would seem that if legions of middle-class people can adapt, why couldn't poor people?
> the notion that they have a genuine choice itself tends to come from a highly privileged attitude
You keep repeating that your opponents are privileged, that is not an argument for anything, it's just random ad hominem. Not that it even makes sense.
But in any case, even if someone has little choice, that doesn't mean that it's reasonable to say that a gift "imposes" on the receiver. If I give a beggar a hamburger, I am not forcing him to eat meat, whether he has much else to eat or not.
And where exactly do you draw the line, how high standard does free housing have to have? Middle class? Upper middle class?