Single sex toilets in leisure centres

I felt more sorry for them when they had no power to eject Willy wavers in the ladies.

If I understand the posters who have explained the legislation then as long as organisations provide appropriate unisex toilets and changing rooms they are not in breach of anything. My office has appropriate unisex toilets and while I don't really like them (I find them claustrophobic)I think technically they are complying with the law. I think my swimming pool too complies. I am more relaxed in the pool setting as there is usually a member of staff roaming about. I would prefer single sex but I think it is compliant with legislation.

So I think what may well happen going forward is we will have more unisex provisions. The key them is to ensure they meet requirements and raise concerns if they don't.

The Massachusetts study didn't show a significant difference but did it show any difference?

Because any indication of risk is unsafe and unacceptable. It just wasn't a risk 30 years ago. It's not "only" a few incidents. These are all real people. A third space would protect transpeople who aren't comfortable using their sex-based space. It might not reaffirm their belief in their gender or be a preferred option but it is a safe option for everyone.

It is silly to try implementing an inclusive policy for showers on the basis of hygiene reasoning if such a policy will result in more people forgoing them, rather than the 1% who aren't comfortable showering at home or, again, in a third space.

Interesting case in Scotland where parents complained that the new school built for their kids only had unisex loos. They duly produced the relevant legislation which states that 50% of loos in Scottish schools are built for boys, and 50% of the loos should be for girls and these must be housed in separate facilities. 20% of Scottish schools don’t comply with this and councils are facing large bills to rectify the situation.

you’d have thought if you were building a school and there were rules to adhere to, they’d be looked at.

That is the end of the month.

"In contrast, 36% of transgender women using male bathrooms have been assaulted,"

I'm sorry but I really do not believe this at all.
.

"In a global study of all reported incidents involving biological men on biological women in female bathrooms, only one of the perpetrators identified as transgender"

And this is absolute rubbish. Although perhaps this is the one incident that you are talking about

From 2019 in Fife Scotland:

"A transgender woman threatened to stab a 10-year-old girl’s mother during a terrifying sexual assault in the female toilets of a Morrison’s supermarket.

Katie Dolatowski, 18, admitted grabbing the youngster by her face and forcing her into the cubicle before demanding she take her trousers off at the store in Fife, Scotland, on 4 March.

She carried out a similar attack just weeks earlier, on 8 February, when another young girl using the toilet at an Asda store in Halbeath spotted Dolatowski using a mobile phone to spy on her over the partition wall."

But no it can't be. As that isn't the only one. There are a whole load from the USA:

The exact same thing from Wyoming:

"A transgender woman in Wyoming has been convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl inside the bathroom of a local home — and now faces up to 70 years in prison."

Then there is the infamous Loudoun school rape in Virginia.

Or how about the case of a trans student in Oklahoma beating up girls in the girl's changing rooms.

Or the same thing in California:

"Huge Transgender Student Allegedly Pummels Schoolgirls After Being Confronted for Entering Female Locker Room: Report"

Or the case in Wisconsin of:

"Trans student exposed girls to male genitalia in school locker room"

And there are very many more indeed.

Just one case? Really?

The end of the month? Wednesday?

That 'study' has been found to be loaded and false.

There are ZERO cases of any transwoman ever being assaulted in a male space. If there were, they'd rub it in our faces and never, ever let us forget it.

Also, transwomen themselves have admitted they are safe in the males and the worst they get is a smirk, apparently. Interestingly gay males have never said they felt 'unsafe' there, AND, women when faced with long queues at the ladies will sometimes use the males, and they are safe. So, it puts paid to the LIE that a male (transwoman) is unsafe in the males.

There are at least 20 that I know of, cases where transwomen have assaulted females in the female space. There are reports at schools of girls holding it in all day, even on their period as their toilets are unisex/male inclusive. At work, women avoid drinking fluids to avoid the unisex/male inclusive toilets, leading to Urinary Tract Infections. It's a situation that will see the deaths of women and girls if this isn't stopped. This is why the SC decision is so important. It will literally save women and girls lives.

You also forget that it is not just about safety, but privacy and dignity away from the male gaze. It's about a place flee a male chasing you, to miscarry (as women have miscarried in public toilets before, some admittedly so on this forum) and having females around to help you, to escape to cry (often about men), to rinse/dry bloodstained underwear out, puked on/breast leaking blouses, mooncups, to get changed and/or adjust yourself out in the open near the sink. It is about so much more than fearing a male will get in and rape you.

36%? There is not one recorded incident of a transwoman being harmed in a men's single sex space in the UK. None. Ever. And since 'hate crimes' against transpeople have been recorded which include things like having to see a sticker that has words you don't like on, or someone tweeting something you don't agree with, I'm pretty confident that if any such incident had happened, we'd have heard about it. Women and girls however, have been sexually assaulted by transwomen in women's single sex spaces. Karen White and Katie Dolatowski are two such transwomen criminals, but they're not the only ones.

Individual cubicles, or single sex shared changing rooms which are actually single sex are the only lawful options now. Can't control which businesses choose to offer (other than voting with your feet) but they can't offer women's changing rooms with men allowed in any more.

Studies from 2018 are likely to have only had 3 years of data. We know the transwomen community has a very high number of sexual offenders and ex criminals in their number, so research done in the last 15 years will show otherwise.

Yes. There are two major pieces of research in this area. The 2018 UCLA study found no correlation between trans-inclusive policies and increased risk in bathrooms and locker/changing rooms, and the more recent Massachusetts study which compared states with and without gender identity inclusive policies for bathrooms and locker/changing rooms found low rates of safety violations in bathrooms overall, and no significant difference between trans-inclusive and non-inclusive areas.

In a global study of all reported incidents involving biological men on biological women in female bathrooms, only one of the perpetrators identified as transgender, and only them and one other was presenting as women for the purposes of accessing that space - all of the rest were male-identifying and male-presenting males.

So yes, there is plenty of data on the "receipts".

In contrast, 36% of transgender women using male bathrooms have been assaulted, 70% of transgender people avoid using bathrooms in public due to fear, and 8% have had UTIs because of holding it in to avoid using public restrooms.

In the meantime, I would say anecdotally that there are a lot of women who don't want to use unisex changing rooms, which is how a lot of spaces are going to choose to navigate this. Council leisure centres in two previous areas where I've lived moved to doing this, and really it just results in no one having a proper shower which is not great for public health either.

In that case they would be open to a discrimination claim.

If there is a need for a men's changing room then there will equally be a need for a women's changing room.

If the company provides single sex spaces for men but not for women then that is clear direct discrimination on the ground of sex (unless there was some particular reason that only men would need such a space - can't think what that might be though).

Seriously?? How many more threads on this topic can we need!

My thoughts are that it’s getting very tedious seeing people misusing AIBU for their own soapbox.

I don't think anyone is suggesting browbeating staff but politely asking frontline staff is also a good idea. They can then feedback to management that there is public concern amongst actual customers. That, coupled with writing to head office, is more likely to get results than only doing one or the other.

My point is more that 20 years ago people weren't thinking about or having these conversations.

Even a few years ago it wouldn't have been on my mind. But the more these conversations are happening, the more people are having to take a position - like the courts - and if might be something they need to revise.

If it's local authority owned then write to whoever has cabinet responsibility for leisure on your council.

The write to the company director or head of operations.

It’s not brow beating service staff who are not decision makers.

You have to start somewhere! This is law now. They should be abiding by it.

As if the person on reception is in charge of toilets or company policy.

Well tell the men to stop fussing and just use the men's facilities then and we can stop taking about it.

This has become the most boring topic since Brexit!

@Catopia There are still enough local papers around to feature Articles and Headlines like "Young people especially girls being put at risk by having men changing near them"
Opting out of provision for Single Sex is not a viable choice for a business or a Local Authority.

They can provide unisex spaces but those have to meet specific requirements.

And most already do.

The problems are gkijg to arise where they've simply renamed women's (and some men's) toilets (for example) as 'gender neutral' and aren't complaint.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, single use toilets ie the whole room is lockable for one person, are lawful. If your office has mixed sex toilets that aren't that, they're breaking health and safety law.

Same with single person changing rooms, they're lawful as they're single use (though more dangerous for women as PP has posted) What isn't lawful is dividing provision but doing it in any other way other than sex. Like the 'womens' changing room at Fife or Darlington hospitals.