Non-binary colleague using disabled toilet

Seems a sensible solution to me, unless they’re in the toilet every 10 minute sin which case it could cause a problem to disabled users. I frequently use disabled toilets because it’s convenient, I have yet to have come out to find a disabled person waiting to go in.

You should stop doing that.

But to get it VAT free ... ?

"By purchasing this key VAT free you will be declaring you are entitled to VAT exemption for disabled people and the key will be for your own personal use."

There are lots of places to buy them.

Do you use disabled parking spaces too?

Would you still mind, if it was a staff diabled toilet?

At my work people use the diasabled toilet, some just prefer it to the normal toilet for whatever reason.

That's probably because they needed to go and have had to struggle their way into the ladies/men's toilet as they cannot access the disabled.

Unless there are constantly disabled people waiting for a toilet I dont see an issue.

I don’t know who you’re arguing with but it isn’t me - I haven’t expressed any of the opinions you’re putting in my mouth. You’ve simply created a strawman and are arguing with yourself.

I am discussing the specific situation OP has described and indicated that I think her investment in this odd and her motivations unclear, and that there is no indication that this situation is actually causing problems for disabled people or that her colleague isn’t in fact disabled. I’ve said nothing about the general rights of disabled people to be provided with accessible toilets and I certainly haven’t suggested those rights shouldn’t be preserved.

It actually occurred to me that some of my colleagues might be harbouring resentment to me, similar to OP’s for her colleague. My colleagues don’t know about my disability (HR does), and as I said it’s invisible. If they asked me if I had a disability, or if the subject of disability came up at work, I would lie and say I wasn’t disabled because it’s not information I trust them with. Perhaps they see me using the disabled loo eight or nine times a day and secretly contemplate starting threads on mumsnet about how selfish and ableist I’m being by doing so without appearing to have a reason.

@verysmellyjelly
Seeing how some discussions here can get, with some pretty clear bigotry to boot, I ain't touching FWR lol

Your annoyance is fair so I understand where you're coming from.

I feel OP opinion was made pretty clear lol, as for how you feel about specific workplace, I understand where you're coming from, but we can't act like all places suffer the same issues, the fact that OP never said anything about this being a recurring issue and other people doing the same, kinda points that this is a isolated event instead of people unfairly using the disabled bathroom.

And again, as far as we know the person have a invisible disability if we go by OP contradictory words.

@WarmingClothesontheRadiator
OP does care; she raised it with her boss.

If OP cared about disabled bathrooms she also would have asked to put baby changing room somewhere else at some point, it could have being changed to the women bathroom, this is all about the non binary person.

’isn’t’ Is a contraction of ‘is not’ and in ‘is not disabled’

Where is the contradiction?

Literally OP own words:

FYI this person is not disabled and does not consider themself to have a disability

FYI this person is not disabled - means they're not disabled

and does not consider themself to have a disability - if the person is explicitly not disabled, why does she need to specify that they don't consider themselves disabled? It's literally completely meaningless and redundant.

As quite a few posters said, they have issues that are disability but don't consider themselves disabled, the fact that OP said the person don't consider themselves disabled point that the person possibly do in fact have a invisible disability but simply don't consider themselves disabled.

What she said is contradictory because nobody would specify if they consider themselves disabled after making clear they're not, fact that what the person consider is into question very clearly implies that they hve something.

You can get them for less than £3 on Amazon. Though agree that would include 50p of VAT. Not sure how much of a barrier 50p presents to those intending on buying one for immoral use…

Non binary is not a disability. It's not even a thing.

To think your non binary ness means you can use a facility intended for someone with a condition (who possibly cannot physically use a non adapted toilet) which has a genuine impact on their life is possibly the definition of privilege and entitlement.

Yes really. 🫣

This is a sensible alternative

There is no contradiction. It may be redundant but OP was just clarifying their use of the disabled toilet was not related to disability.

What a pity that you're unable to disagree with the op without resorting to an ageist, misogynist slur.

How many disabled people need to soil themselves/be in pain/feel unable to use that business before you would consider it an issue?

Having to wait, while desperate or drive about a car park until the "able" person is selfishly finished.

Totally different issue. Of course people without disabled badges should not be parking in disabled spaces. But not having immediate access to a toilet is different. I sometimes have to wait. Sometimes that means I mess myself and have to change/go home. Its horrible. But is what happens when you go out in public. Its just life. It could equally well be a disabled person in there making me wait.

You guys, OP does not care about toilets for disabled people.

She won't even put the baby change table up in them.

This is how easy it is on MN. Mention someone trans or nonbinary and most people on here get so excited to insult them.

If OP cared she wouldn't be fighting in KFC about leaving the bathroom as she found it.

The majority of women on here are very easy to manipulate when it comes to these issues.

It is contradictory cause again, some posters have disability but don't consider themselves disabled, there was nothing OP had to clarify, she said they're not disabled right in their first post, done, nothing else to add.

Not being disabled is not being disabled, it's a full affirmation that doesn't need any explanation, she simply could have said that again if necessary.

As soon as she said they don't consider themselves disabled that completely put into question the person actual situation and what OP actually knows and her actual intentions when talking to her boss.

Yes,you're being unreasonable. The disabled toilet is a-gender, ergo, your non-binary colleague feels more comfortable going there. Are you disabled? Is it affecting your ability to go to the toilet? If not, it's none of your gd business

@Princessconsuelabananahammock9 The problem is the vast number of abled people who think it's fine to use the disabled toilet. This opinion is being pushed by people from every position in the wider debate of sex and gender, it's not just from one side. So the OP's own view and motivation is actually secondary. Some will think she is suspicious and others won't. Leave that up to MNHQ. It's simply a fact that many, many, many posters have said it's fine for abled people to use disabled toilets.

I find this a very ironic post considering your other views.

It's everyone's business when disabled people are being affected in a widespread societal any by promoting the idea that these facilities are just another toilet for anyone who wants to use it.

It's not. It's a disabled toilet for disabled people.

Ah, transphobia is alive and well with this comment.