There's something racist about toilet provision in the UK.

Definition of Racism- Racism is when a person is treated worse, excluded, disadvantaged, harassed, bullied, humiliated or degraded because of their race or ethnicity.

This isn't an issue for Race. It's not xenophobic either. It's gender politics.

Can we get some perspective, here? UK gender neutral toilets have cubicles with lockable doors.

Women in the countries various aid groups are campaigning for often have to go out in the open. In fields, as one PP mentioned, by the roadside, sometimes even in the street.

Nobody has to take their knickers down in the UK in the open. That's the difference.

If gender neutral toilets had no doors, or had urinals for the men, you'd have a point.

The only difference between gender neutral and ladies only loos is you might see a man next to you at the wash basin. You cannot compare that with having to take your knickers down and lift your dress up in full view of anyone walking past.

So why are amnesty international not campaigning for mixed sex toilets with doors in India? They are campaigning for single sex spaces in developing countries. If mixed sex spaces are so safe, why not campaign for them in India?

Racist? 🙄

A big difference at that!

Gender neutral public toilets here have cubicles and doors. In some places in India there is nowhere to go except out in the open.

In gender neutral public toilets in the UK nobody has to take their pants down with a man looking on. There's a door you can lock. That's the difference.

i don’t recall any sign in any toilet in the UK saying ‘British only’. So presumably, as our population is quite diverse, people of all races/cultures use toilets here.
I do think toilets should be separate, but I don’t think think you can spin combining them here as racism because others do not. Plenty of other countries have combined sexes toilets/changing facilities.

I absolutely agree that the attitude that single-sex toilets are necessary in the developing world, but unnecessary in the white democracies, is racist. It definitely implies that brown men cannot be trusted whereas white men are somehow better.

It is also entirely misogynistic to say that women anywhere should not have access to safer, more dignified, ie single-sex, toilets.

They're not suggesting that though.

Single sex spaces weren't removed here because everyone agreed Western/white men are no longer a risk to women but because they didn't care enough about that risk to women living in the West to tell men they couldn't use women's single sex spaces if they wanted to.

Much of the TWAW rhetoric is predicated on the risk to women being recognised and some men claimed to be women and so claimed to need the same protections as women from other men.

OP, wouldn't your time be better spent concerning yourself about those developing counties, which have no toilet facilities at all?

I do not see it as racist but provision is never fair or equal as the female provision is usually less than the amount of provision for men.

Usually covering the same physical area space but as women need all cubicles and men do not it means there can be more provision for men in the same space meaning there is often less provision for women meaning more queues.

Womens toilets should be 50% bigger than mens to accommodate the same amount of toilet provision as men have. If they can fit in 1 cubicle and 5 urinals then the females should have more space to fit in 6 cubicles to match the provision for 6 men.

They're not suggesting that though.

Single sex spaces weren't removed here because everyone agreed Western/white men are no longer a risk to women but because they didn't care enough about that risk to women living in the West to tell men they couldn't use women's single sex spaces if they wanted to.

Exactly.

And isn't it racist to suggest that some cultures are better than others?

That's exactly it.

I think this is two separate issues.

The UK does not particularly care about women's rights. Nor does the rest of the world, generally. However, we understand that men in times of war can carry out crimes where they have opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, I think women would have the same concerns here too.

Separately, the public do have a view that sexual offenders are foreign, when the last statics from ONS and released on the gov website on this topic prove otherwise. I blame the media and propaganda.

Would I like unisex public toilets (where there's more than one toilet together)? No because to me ethnicity doesn't matter, the reason is men. Amnesty International need to get in the bin with their toilet stance though.

I think thst might be it. So not racist but misogynistic to the core,

No. Its because some men wanted to enter women's spaces and so they had to find a way of allowing that because women are still regarded as 'less than' men in Western society otherwise we wouldn't have been falling over ourselves to appease a few men's wants over all women's needs.

Spot on. But it's misogyny that underpins the divide.

It's misogyny that positions women as 'second class citizens'.

Unfortunately, misogyny is far too big a fish to fry so all any culture or society can do is recognise it and put safeguards in place to protect women.

Or, in the case of Britian, just make sure that misogyny isn't considered in hate crime legislation (some of the reasons given were around the unintended consequences of how it might negatively impact men).

But in the UK women are now becoming second class citizens all over again. And these Aid organisations are condoning that. Do they really believe Western men are more able to be trusted than those in developing countries? Why? Because of culture?

I think the racism bit is a misnomer. Semantics key here.
the point you make is valid. That in some countries the provision of single sex toilets is seen as a priority in terms of women’s and girls health.

i think it is cultural not racism. In these countries the men have little doubt who the women are biologically. Women are segregated. Men see women who are not “protected” by a man at any moment as fair game to make sexual advances to- either low level harrassment, to rape and murder. The lack of casual social interaction between men and women make every encounter without a chaperone a risk for women. And risk is more keenly felt as women are often blamed entirely for what befalls them. Without toilet provision women are seen, even by a woke amnesty, as sitting ducks at their most vulnerable when relieving themselves in fields etc.

but this isn’t race. You only have to go back to pre 1893 and women in this co7ntry were in the SAME position. The often cited “toilet leash”. Women could not go out for the day due to lack of toilet provision for them. They were chained to their homes. Working class women were limited at jobs they could do, and working in groups of women where toilet provision became a necessity for employees, or they worked near/in their homes to use toilets (hence the segregation’s in many factories of women’s work vs men’s work )

Women fought for years to remove the toilet leash, until the law was changed to provide women’s toilets in 1893. Just the same as women fought for years to have single sex segregated jails.

before those battles were won, women were just as vulnerable as women are today in developing countries where amnesty is fighting for their provisions.

it is a culture of keeping women in their place (homes) and under control. Women need toilets to be independent, self sufficient and live a life outside of the home. Patrichial Culture wants to keep them there

in the west most men, and a lot of women have very short memories. Becuase we’ve moved away form the horrors of women being limited by the toilet leash, or vulnerable to sexual assualt every time they need to relive themselves, society has forgotten. The “not all men” was always the case, but sufficient numbers of men will always see women in lone position as an entitlement to harass or abuse. And a sufficient number of men and women, see no issue with subversively reintroducing the toilet leash, even if it’s an “unconscious bias” to being kind and inclusive to “everyone”.

the west, and amnesty staffers here, have forgotten their history. They’ve given away hard fought rights and laws. And made it out to be a fuss over nothing, it couldn’t happen.

but in developing countries they haven’t got there yet, and it’s patently obvious the cultural gap still makes women a sitting target.

so not racism. A blindness to cultural gaps between developed and developing countries. Or cultural gaps where women are still second class citizens.

I agree OP, this type of ‘double standard’ is common amongst ‘liberal’ people, and they don’t see the racism in it.

Plenty of men dressed as women in south Asia, from street beggars to high society.

It's not racism, it's misogyny.

All women need single sex provision becaise we know men are a risk to us. That's recognised otherwise we wouldn't be told that if men want to hide in toilets to rape us they will do so there's no point in trying to keep them out - they'll do it anyway.

One of the markers of a civilised society is single sex toilet provision for women to protect privacy, dignity and safety.

Some countries have been behind others in providijg these single sex spaces and so there is a big focus it in some places.

In 2017, "Toilet: Ek Prem Katha" (translated as "Toilet: A Love Story") was released in India. A film about the fight of women in rural India to get toilet provision. In India, women in rural communities went/go (not sure of the current status) into the fields to go to the toilet together to lessen the risk of being sexually assaulted by men who would effectively lie in wait for them. It was a problem that hadn't been addressed.

Toilets didn't become mixed sex here because people decided that Western/white/whatever men presented less of a risk to women but because some of those men started claiming to be women and demanded the right to enter women's single sex spaces.

People in general (men and many, sadly and unfathomably, women) don't feel comfortable with women having the right to say, "No," to men and asserting their boundaries. And so they contorted themselves to believe TWAW to be ok with it.

They still believe that women need single sex spaces but in order to circle the square of not wanting men in women's spaces but not wanting to say no to men's wants in favour of women's needs and rights, they lied to themselves and pretended that men who say they are women became women no different to us.

It's misogyny.

But these organisations are being racist. They are claiming that men in developing countries are somehow more of a danger in mixed sex spaces than the men in the UK. Can you imagine if Nigel farage made the same statement? How is that not racist? Either all men are an equal risk in mixed sex spaces or none are.

Imagine presenting your hypothesis to your tutor: the emergence of racism in toilets in the UK.

😅