To ask why women would be uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms

What is unusual in the recent case of the poor woman who got attacked in Southport is that they had good cctv images and led a nationwide campaign that caught the man and that it was reported in the first place.

Attatched are the figures, just from the Metropolitian police area, that were reported by victims. Only a few perpetrators were ever charged. I do not believe this figure includes numbers for other establishments like schools and possibly offices. Do you think the opportunity goes up or down for perpetrators in floor to ceiling unisex cubicles?

It does harm female people to remove a single sex provision. There are people on this thread stating how they are harmed by this change.

part of my role at a previous employment was to assess and report on the state of common areas (which mainly meant bathrooms) in public places/shops/restaurants/cafes/pubs/cinemas etc. This meant going into cubicles and checking everything was working/not broken/ well provisioned etc. One more than one occasion I refused to even enter the cubicles in the men’s because they were so filthy and piss soaked. Unisex loos were invariably in a similar state and were generally sketchy. I will only ever use single sex women’s bathrooms now when I’m out.

I can give you too many examples of sexual assaults and deaths in unisex toilet cubicles. If you Google you will find that lots happen in disabled toilets too. I warn you though - it is very depressing reading.

What is more likely to keep predators out is the risk of being caught.

@AngelAva

Not every decision or policy has to benefit women, it's ok for things to benefit other groups in society too

Leaving aside for now that you are wrong that the switch to unisex toilets does not make things worse for women and taking your argument on its own, which "other groups in society" do unisex toilets actually benefit?

@AngelAva

I don't believe it does harm women because all the headlines of assaults and voyeurism in the news recently have been in women's bathrooms so the woman picture on the door doesn't keep predators out anyway.

fairplayforwomen.com/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger/

You're wrong.

Andrew Gilligan wrote about this in The Times in 20188_. Through a freedom of information request, he found that the vast majority – just under 90 per cent – of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism or harassment reported at leisure centres and public swimming pools took place in unisex facilities. Of these, sexual attacks made up 67 per cent.
There were 134 reports of sexual assault in changing rooms over the two year period 2017 to 2018. Of these, 120 took place in gender-neutral changing rooms compared to just 14 in single-sex changing areas.
A further 46 sexual assault allegations were made about attacks in other areas such as in the pool, in a sports hall or corridors. These are not included in the percentages.

Only two days ago there was a thread complaining that disabled toilets aren't being kept for the disabled they're being given away to everyone else is society for baby change and if they just can't be bothered to queue after the disabled historically fought for accessible facilities.

This isn't a woman specific phenomenon. Also, nobody asked men to vote on whether they wanted unisex toilets, why would a vote be held for such a thing? Not every decision or policy has to benefit women, it's ok for things to benefit other groups in society too. And I say that as a woman. As long as it doesn't harm women then it's fine. I don't believe it does harm women because all the headlines of assaults and voyeurism in the news recently have been in women's bathrooms so the woman picture on the door doesn't keep predators out anyway.

It isn't, no.

And let's not forget, women and girls weren't even asked how WE felt about it before mixed sex toilets were imposed all over the country. I appreciate some women are busy saying how much they "don't mind" and "don't see the problem" but they don't consent for everyone else, and I'd question how easily it was assumed that no other women minded and didn't even need to be asked - and if they did mind they could expect to be shamed as bigoted, prudish witches. Not exactly democratic or reasonable, is it? And says a lot about how women are viewed. We're fine as long as we're "good girls", do what the guys want and approve of, and don't push back or ask for anything for ourselves. But evil witches if we don't comply. Curious as to whether we think any other demographic would get treated that way with regard to something they'd fought for historically.

It stinks, in my view. As much as your average urinal.

Ask who benefits? Doesn't feel like women.

It would feel more dangerous if all men were allowed in rather than one going in on their own.

This man has since been arrested once the image was shared nationwide rather than just Southport. From Carlisle apparently.

Police CCTV appeal over alleged rape in pub bathroom www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4xp7y1geno

Apparently the men's and women's loos were close together. So mot unisex but it still happened.

Women chatting at the sink whilst washing their hands are not stopping other women from getting into the cubicles.

Exactly. This seems to have been forgotten entirely, along with basic history about the fight for women's rights, of which separate facilities and services in certain circumstances (eg toilets, changing areas, dormitories, hospital wards, prisons, rape crisis centres, the right to same sex care for intimate medical services/checks etc) was one example. Evidence of a worryingly complacency that rights are set in stone and that changes are always "forward progress", it seems to me.

The Chesterton's Fence principle applies here. Before you remove something (like a fence that has been put in place, or a boundary) in the name of supposed "progress", it's sensible to understand why it was put up in the first place.

So to repeat this entirely pertinent question, why were separate facilities for women and girls fought for historically? Why are developing nations still fighting for them as a women's human rights issue? And yes, to pick up on what others have said, what is the advantage or benefit to WOMEN & GIRLS of mixed sex facilities exactly and the removal of single sex facilities? What is the benefit to the rest of society? Who does it benefit the most?

Why did women originally have, and need, separate toilet facilities? Those reasons have not gone way. The fact that throughout the developing world the right for women to have separate toilet facilities is still being fought for should tell you something.

I really must get one of those UV torches sold for spotting pet urine and keep it in my bag for use in public toilets.

I'm sure the results in unisex versus women's toilets would be most interesting.

Cleaning is always worse with floor to ceiling cubicles as you can’t use a mop from the outside. As a cleaner you have to go into the cubicle and close the door to clean. If excrement is on the floor or partitions (I have cleaned vomit, blood, urine and poo off) you can’t swill it down by throwing bleach and water as the mix accumulates at the edges, rather than flowing through the gap. Unless you have mechanical ventilation, the smells are concentrated inside the cubicle. Airborne diseases and smells are concentrated in there as a results. Science has proven they are less clean, there’s been research done I can link to if you need.

Then there’s the fact that everyone is at danger if they collapse in a toilet and can’t be seen to be rescued. And that assaults, drug taking and self harm are more likely to happen in private.

In reality, the floor to ceiling cubicles are a disaster for health and safety.

I get stage fright in quiet toilets, I think it would be way worse with a male colleague hearing every sound.

Blimey every day is a school day!

The BA lounge loos in Heathrow T5 have all been made neutral this year...

I take it BA don't want Muslim or Orthodox Jewish women to use their lounge then. Isn't that discrimination on the basis of religion?

I have had this type of conversation with a friend. One that is very important to their health and safety that could only occur when we could go to the loos together to be away from partners.

It is an important social dynamic.

I have cleaned the toilets in a pub before and I don’t believe that the female toilets were anywhere near as bad as the male toilets.

Has there been a significant change in toilet habits that people now say that female toilets are worse? Or is it the pee on the seats issue that happens in female toilets vs the male toilets that is being said to make it worse?

I hate the idea. I wouldn't want to be inches away from a man in a cubicle and certainly wouldn't be asking one to post toilet paper under the wall. And where is the safe space then for abused women wanting to escape their date? No.
NB I'm not at all against men, but I don't want to share intimate spaces with a stranger.

Tell that to my sons - since getting older and having to use the mens, they hate it - smelly, broken, wee everywhere, no loo roll - they'd much prefer to be back in the ladies.

Do you not understand why those conversations might be happening there? Sometimes it’s the only time they’ll see that friend and doesn’t want to talk about private details with the group. Sometimes their abuser is sitting right next to them and it’s their own way to safety.

It’s clear you’ve never actually used women’s toilets if you think chatting by the sinks is getting in the way of the queue for the cubicles in all of these experiences. This is going to be a major shock for you but some women’s toilets in some of the clubs I’ve been in have even had sofas!

Nonsense. The queue for the cubicles.

You might think it’s crazy but many women as you can see share the experience since the dawn of time