Tried three places for lunch today and none cater for women

"I went to a restaurant but couldn't eat anything because nothing was gluten free".

People seem to find that absolutely acceptable all the time and whilst I wouldn't personally call coeliac disease a disability it does actually meet the legal criteria and has been counted as a disability in historic employment tribunals.

I actually think it's fair enough that not everywhere can cater for me. I think it's a bad business decision because being gluten free is so common (more than 1/100 people and those people typically eat with friends/family) but that's their choice.

It was 30 years ago. When my friends GP assumed she'd want an abortion when she fell pregnant. Was clearly standard practice as they were very surprised when my friend went ballistic.

When she saw the facilities at the hospital she knew why. They'd had a £10,000,000 refit and some doors weren't wide enough to take a wheelchair, and there were no shower facilities for wheelchair users. She ended up having to go home after giving birth leaving little one in neo natal.

No, but I'd be shocked if you came up with an example and people said 'oh actually, that's ok.'

It might be impossible to make everywhere accessible to all, but we should be trying? Especially as nowhere was a listed building in the OPs example.

You are absolutely not being unreasonable then. It's disgraceful in this day and age x

They can email back and explain can't they?

If it were left to you, things would never get better.

Thank you.

Because the accessible room they had provided could only be accessed over more gravel which was between the entrance and the fire assembly point.

The hotel had recently been taken over by a celebrity chef and his very first decision was to rip out the tarmaced paths and replace them with pea shingle.

Fire brigade turned up, one look, listed a few pages of breaches and used their powers to close the premises.

That was 15 years ago. She's not got the energy anymore. it's like the labours of Hercules.

"Name and Shame" with the goal to shut down?.🤨

I wouldn't be emailing anyone without further back ground.

Genuine question but how did she know that they were flouting fire regulations when she couldn’t get up the path let alone into the hotel? Or was the step the issue?

Yanbu

OP is writing to her audience, which on MN is mainly women.

AliceMaforethought · Today 07:38

"I thought that this thread was yet another one about trans issues."

That's what I thought and i'm disabled with Multiple Sclerosis.

Name and shame the restaurants, OP.

We can all email them.

The story ends with my friend contacting the local fire service on Monday who turned up and closed the hotel down for a slew of fire safety breaches. A rare victory.

Because people in wheelchairs can toast very nicely.

This is my absolute bugbear. I have ended up in tears before when confronted with a long stretch of gravel at a place that claimed to be accessible.

Apparently the "accessible" entrance was (as per usual) at the back, Only they had decided to pea shingle the grounds so wheelchairs couldn't propel. Rather than be carried round she had to go back home

Ah yes, gravel. Absolute nightmare.

We once stayed at an "accessible" house in France. There was a very long, very flat path to the main entrance. It was covered in very deep gravel and impossible to get the wheelchair along it.

So many people on here fixating on there being an accessible toilet and wondering why you would need to check anything in advance.

I can guarantee that the majority of posters here (so >50%) have never once clicked the "Accessibility" section on a venues website.

And I can guarantee that of the remainder, at least half will have discovered that as far as the venue is concerned "Accessiblity" is webpage telling you how accessible the website is, and you need to either call (hah !) or try to contact the venue by their overly gushing social media.

And of the people that have tried that, around half will still be waiting for an answer.

And of the people that did actually get a reply, half will have found it was "I guess so"

And of the people that actually decided to risk a visit, half will have found a step that the staff "forgot" was there.

All of which happened to a friend who travelled 100 miles to a hotel that was "accessible" for a wedding. Got to the front door and there was a fucking six inch step not mentioned anywhere. Apparently the "accessible" entrance was (as per usual) at the back, Only they had decided to pea shingle the grounds so wheelchairs couldn't propel. Rather than be carried round she had to go back home.

I've often felt she earns her benefits. I couldn't be doing with shit like that daily.

By bringing penises into it you caused a lot of confusion. It would have been much better to make your point about accessibility directly.
With all the current discussion on here about single sex toilets it sounded like you were talking about going to cafes and restaurants where there were only unisex toilets available.
Your point was poorly made because it was confusing and hit on a theme which gets a lot of attention on here and is a well-known MN discussion point. Lots of people, myself included, thought you were talking about that. Also the comment at the end of your OP about being disabled did not clear things up because it sounded like you were comparing being a woman to being disabled because women don't have penises.

However, there does need to be more discussion about accessibility for disabled people.

It's not a great analogy because the places didn't say you couldn't come in simply because you are disabled, you weren't physically able to eat there. I imagine some people with disabilities would have been able to eat in some of those places.

I do feel for you, I have coeliac disease and it's frustrating not being able to pop in somewhere for lunch, grab a sandwich, go on holiday without lots of planning, guarantee there will be anything I can eat at an airport etc. But I'd imagine you'd probably say 'well you can't expect every restaurant to cater for every allergy'. Maybe you wouldn't but most people do think that and they probably aren't wrong.

Yes, places should be more accessible but accessible can mean lots of things and to be fully accessible a venue would have to be wheelchair friendly, have a changing places toilet, cater for sensory needs, have facilities in place for blind/deaf people, cater for all food allergies - the list goes on. Or is it just your disability they should cater for?

Being logical though, 2% may use a wheelchair, but they probably often go out to venues with at least one or more extra person. We have four children. The venue we choose for all 6 of us with be the venue that accommodates my wheelchair.

I don't expect everywhere to be able to adapt but it makes good business sense to do so if you can

This is the problem. Accessibility is not merely about having the right toilet and sticking a ramp in.

Someone who is visually impaired, for example, may require the following depending on their specific circumstances:

• bright lighting rather than the atmospheric gentle/low lighting used by many restaurants and pubs (this though can cause conflicting issues for those with autism)
• menus in braille, large print, or in a different contrast
• wide and clear walkways, where they don't have to navigate through tables
• even floors, no old flagstones for example
• no low or narrow doorways
• clear and unambiguous signage in bright colours on toilet doors - no chintzy drawings or bowties / tiaras stuck to the door (as per my village pub!)
• high contrast markings on steps and uneven floors

Some of these are much easier to implement than others....

The challenge and confusion is that there are places where they only admit men so it’s a real scenario and people took it as such. . If you’d said red hair or some other feature that may have worked. Or actually used the analogy. I get you are cross and frustrated but it’s not „our“ fault ie the readers.

we do live in a world where women can’t buy lunch „wherever“ that is why it doesn’t work as an analogy.

So many people on here fixating on there being an accessible toilet and wondering why you would need to check anything in advance.

I have a family member who is a wheelchair user. They don't need access to a toilet away from home so this isn't an issue. They also use a battery powered chair which is big (and heavy). When they were younger and in a "manual" chair it was no problem to lift/bump them up and down a few steps, but there is no way to do this with the current chair. Low tables are also a problem as they cannot comfortably get close enough to the table.

Their chair requires a fair amount of space to move around, so no matter how "accessible" a venue is, if it has tightly packed tables and chairs then that is a problem. See also "door widths". The door may well be wide enough, but if the entry is via a ramp which sits at right angles to the door, there may not be enough space to negotiate the turn - maybe try doing it with a fully laden supermarket trolley or a double buggy and see how you get on.

That's true. Though if somewhere claims to have an accessible toilet, I'm always surprised when it is actually down 3 steps or can barely fit in a child's wheelchair so an adults wheelchair isn't going to fit in.

I've given up asking about proper changing facilities, especially with hoists available.

Just almost not right away then? Being disabled and having limited to no access to buildings and facilities has bugger all to do with what the op was going on about ! Being cryptic to try and convey a message is not only irritating but inaccessible.