To highlight this case of voyeurism in what appears to have been a unisex toilet on private premises?

Here is what I have used a public toilet for:

I have spent many days, often 2-3 times a week, where I had a stroller or pram jammed in the door because I had no one but myself to do shopping. And I didn’t need the change table so didn’t use the accessible toilet if there was one. That included at period time with flooding periods and hormonal diarrhoea. Particulary after pregnancy. Often with a crying infant.

I have also had to take my wheelchair bound elderly mother to a normal cubicle when there was no accessible toilet available. Where I couldn’t leave her to sit without assistance to remove the wheelchair to lock the door .

I, too, have washed clothing out, and at times had to unbutton shirts to get them dry from baby vomit, or leaking breasts.

I have even had to do this at work when I was stuck in an event for hours and could not leave to express so ended up with significant leakage. More than once. Because breastfeeding women work too.

And got dressed in work toilets for various reasons.

And cried there and comforted others. And hid there from men who wouldn’t take no for an answer.

I know I am not the only one because several times this past year I have come across half stripped women in the toilets while out dealing with similar issues.

The solution is not demanding gender neutral toilets or more unisex toilets. It is not fully enclosed cubicles. A female taking up a cubicle to wash and dry clothes is putting an undue time demand on those waiting to use that cubicle.

Many daily uses of the toilets involve use of the space outside the cubicle or with the toilet door open.

So, who does 'fully enclosed cubicles' actually help? Only those male people who wish to use the female spaces ultimately. Because now the line up for the toilet is longer. And if those cubicles are 'unisex', the male people are now also lining up. What a great solution!

There are many reasons that women do not want males in the toilet.

I often think it must be nice to never have had to deal with just period flooding the number of times I have since being a teenager. But it seems that there are many female people who have never had to deal with this. What a wonderfully privileged position to have been in! Well done those who have had this privilege who lack the understanding of that privilege and are happy to dismiss other's needs to retain female spaces as single sex with no male people.

I realise that I have very heavy periods compared to some people, but it certainly made me very aware of the need for single sex spaces. In fact, now in peri, I am on a menstrual leash. I cannot leave the house some days due to the flooding incidents, which is fine as those days I can work from home.

However, the female toilets have never been used just to ‘pee’. And I don't want any male person in the female toilets, even the ones who are someone's lovely fucking friends.

I am always surprised when people either never realised this or never acknowledge it.

When things change and there is :

• nothing to gain for women, and
• everything to gain for males with perversions,

It's not surprising that women would object.

Women weren't consulted about this. The women who say it is OK for them have been conditioned to lower their boundaries to accommodate the wishes of males.

And I'm not talking about the occasions where an office /workspace only has one toilet due to size I'm talking about the increasing trend for gender neutral / unisex to appease a tiny minority of males.

Also, men have other ways of harassing women in unisex toilets (and in women’s toilets if men are allowed in because they say they’re women). Hanging around in the communal area, going into a cubicle to masturbate while listening to women peeing, rummaging through the bin, or simply being the only person there when a woman comes in on her own. All of these have been reported by women.

That doesn't change what I said. Men are still enabled to enter, no questions asked, and plant their cameras wherever they want, by having unisex toilets (which are not necessarily single cubicles). I don't consider my privacy, much less safety, at risk from other women in multi-stall toilets. Men? Hell no, they don't belong there.

Are you not alone behind a locked door when you use a unisex toilet?

Alone would be the definition of privacy in my opinion. Having a man use the toilet before or after you doesn't make it less private.

"Determined pervs will find a way, so don't bother with single sex toilets" is the counsel of despair. Why bother with any laws, any preventative measures at all? I don't hear people saying "Locks on your doors are a waste of time, determined burglars will find a way" or "Laws against murder/violence are a waste of time, murderers will still murder". Funny how it's only the most basic measures to give women some chance of privacy and safety that are shrugged off. Time was "good men stay out so the bad ones stand out" was taken for granted, but now women's boundaries are being purposefully eradicated.

He must have put all that crap there when the shop was shut. In a hairdressers there's usually very limited space for toilets, so placing three phones would definitely look obvious if others were around. So the status of the segregation of the toilets in this case doesn't really make any difference. As others have said.
There was one recently where someone stuck a phone in an airplane toilet, again it was a staff member. Some people are just sickos and they just need locking up. When I use a toilet I'm alone behind a locked door. If someone's snuck in prior and put something then there's not much I can do if I don't notice it. Horrible really we have to think of such things.

Men allowing other men to get away with crimes against women. Absolutely disgusting.

I mean the police, were they interested, used to have a limited number of males to suspect of voyeurism in women's only toilets because only cleaners could access.

In unisex, it could be any dude.

What a great leap forward for woman kind.

We not only have to put up with piss all over the floor and toilet seats up, yuk. We have the knowledge that the last bloke who was in there could have left a camera in there.

And now random men can also do it.

Yay, what a whizz.

Fantastic. Now all men can be voyeurs, not just co-employees or cleaners.

What a great time to be alive as a woman.

If you can go in and lock the door and be alone, or go into a cubicle and lock the door and be alone, then you have privacy. Men aren't actually in the toilet with you unless you're weeing with the door open.

The camera was put in there by a male employee. Male employees will always have access to even ladies only toilets as they will be there to clean or repair things when the ladies aren't in there. Unless you want to ban men from the building entirely and not get your toilets maintained unless you can find a female plumber then you can't stop male employees entering the women's bathrooms outside of business hours anyway, which if you're going to put a camera in there, you would be in there outside of business hours.

I mean it's common sense. The removal of women's single sex spaces is bound to result in more incidences of this.

If we know males are a safeguarding risk we don't remove all safeguards, because they are going to do it anyway.

It's just nonsense, we don't leave our front doors unlocked because we know a determined burglar will get in anyway, this is literally no different.

Unless you don't think that women's privacy matters that much, which seems to be the fashion these days.

Is there any evidence for this?

It has been reported in media over the past years that unisex toilets have a higher risk for female people. Sadly, your OP is not unexpected.

But unisex toilets aren't any less safe than single sex for all the reasons stated above.

I think that's nonsense. Even single sex toilets don't have security guards manning the doors. A determined pervert will find away, cleaners etc are often male. As a PP said in this case it appears to have been an employee, it wouldn't be hard at all for a man to gain access even in a singe sex toilet block. Worrying about unisex toilets is a distraction from the issue. Creeps and perverts will find a way, it's not the fault of the toilets. It should however be prosecuted much harder IMO.

This happened a few years ago near here. The guy was a subcontractor at the university. It said he had hundreds of images and all but one victim was never identified. Quite horrifying but not sure how you avoid this. Sentencing seems poor though.

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/19244121.worcester-upskirt-pervert-full-story-court/#gallery0

"But he told officers it was a cry for help as he needed mental health support and felt going to prison was the only way to get it".

Utter bollocks.

This happened about 20 years ago at my work. Not a unisex toilet but the fella snuck in and hid a camera in the ladies loo.

Sadly I don’t think this is a new thing

It reads that it was an employee who carried it out. Even with single sex toilets he would still have access.

Even with separate toilets, a determined perv would find a way to get into the ladies' to plant a camera.

He worked there, so presumably would have had cause to enter the toilets irrespective of how they were labelled.

A very sensible point.

Even women only toilets are attended to by male janitors on some places, male plumbers will attend foraintenance etc. and if the manager is male they will be wanting to go and see their own premises to check for cleanliness etc. outside of business hours so unless you want to ban every male in the building even the cleaners I really don't see how you think having separate sex toilets would prevent this.