Non-binary colleague using disabled toilet

Why does someone with poor mh need a bigger toilet.
Baffled 🤔

I was surprised at how posters think this is ok.

See, l'm as TERFy as they come but as there is no gender neutral option this seems like a sensible thing for your colleague to do. What's your problem with it?

Just because it is empty does not mean there isn't someone about who needs it. They just haven't got there yet. It's for disabled people and people with small babies, not someone who has the imaginary characteristic of non-binary (which suggests that there is a binary, btw, so how does that fit with the trans agenda?)

Guess your another able bodied person

If you can make an active choice between using the disabled toilet or not then chances are you don’t need the disabled toilet.

for those with disabilities they are the only toilet they can access due to their disability. It may be for mobility reasons, it may be because they need the space or the sink, it may be because they need a carer etc etc but without that space they couldn’t access the toilets at all

And sadly for many people the disabled toilets aren’t even accessible. There are nowhere near enough changing places toilets to provide proper facilities for those who need hoists or full size changing beds

This isn't the "third option" gender neutral loo - which is fine by me too - This is the specifically allocated and kitted out disabled loo. It really isn't just for anyone.

@Sirzy

If you can make an active choice between using the disabled toilet or not then chances are you don’t need the disabled toilet.

I don't always need it. Sometimes it's based on location - if the ladies toilets are down/up stairs I would need to use the disabled. Also if there is a massive line and I'm desperate I would use the disabled, but if it wasn't busy/I wasn't about to wet myself I would choose the ladies.

Why does someone with poor mh need a bigger toilet.
Baffled 🤔

//

My mum is on anti depressants. I'll have to let her know she too can use the disabled toilets

And you still don't understand that
(a) they might not wish to reveal their medical condition to the OP
and (b) not all conditions which justify the use of the accessible toilet meet the definition of "disability". That's the statutory definition - not your definition

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle If someone has the right to use the disabled toilet then yes, they are disabled. You may not agree with that which is fine, I don't argue with your personal definitions. But it's not up to you as much as you'd like it to be.

Totally agree with you @Sirzy , the lack of truly accessible toilets and adult changing facilities is shameful.

As above, non-binary is neither here nor there, it's a total red herring.

If he OP's colleague has anxiety about using the gendered loos and that is not present in the disabled one then they're OK using the disabled one. Like reasonable adjustments; it allows them to use stuff in the same way as everybody else.

@Bromptotoo Why are you so desperate to make it easier to give away access to the disabled toilet and harder for us, the people who need it most, to access it when we need it? (Potentially urgently.)

Really. Sit with your own motivations here. It's very disturbing how many people are commenting in this vein. I have to wonder if it stems from not wanting disabled people to actually be out in public. If making it harder and harder for us is the actual underlying motivation. If it was just one or two people pushing this I would be less inclined to think so, but it's SO many of you...

There are no disabled staff members so everyone uses both toilets.

You know it would be really useful if posters could say what they think "disabled" means and what level of disability justifies using the accessible toilet.

You probably have knowledge whether or nor your work colleagues have conditions which meet the definition in Section 6 of The Equality Act 2010 , or whilst not meeting that level, still have the need, even if only occasionally, to use the accessible facilities.

But being disabled is a real condition which profoundly affects somebody's day to day life.

Reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act are to support people with a legitimate protected characteristic; they are not there to accommodate someone who declares that a sign on the door makes them anxious.

There's no need to pander to such self indulgent nonsense at the expense of someone with a genuine disability.

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle Not everyone subscribes to your notion that disability is something that is shameful and must be hidden. Some people are comfortable being more open about it, for a start, and some people have no choice about others knowing.

@verysmellyjelly FFS if the anxiety is disabling then they're disabled.

How difficult is that to grasp?

Your second para is offensive.

Claiming its offensive to meditate on the pervasive ableism on this site that also affects me as a disabled woman in real life is a naked silencing tactic. @Bromptotoo

They could a grip, accept that non binary is not a real thing and everyone's either male or female regardless of their feelings, and use the appropriate toilet for their biological sex?

Again, obviously not quibbling with how anybody chooses to label themselves

That is exactly what you have done over several posts. There's no point in even attempting to refute the rest of your post. It's nonsense btw, but carry on.

If you literally cannot pee in a gendered toilet due to anxiety that's a real condition affecting somebody's day to day life.

Contempt for those who don't buy GC ideology makes no difference to that.

Oh yes, it clearly must be "nonsense" if a disabled person says it! /s

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle I wonder if you even realise how offensive your posts are.

OP said 'does not feel comfortable' not has crippling and disabling anxiety.