"Wrong bathroom" sign in university toilet

Thanks for taking the time to reply Sarah . It's not a pipe dream, I think it's important to not just be saying 'no to self ID' but 'this would work better, and here's why'. There is a genuine need to be met, and no one should have to be using facilities where they feel unsafe or uncomfortable or the target of poor behaviour. self ID is just the wrong answer.

@kneedeepinunicorns thanks for your question. By the time I had opportunity to reply the debate had moved on. Just to clarify, I am still opposed to the GRA and self-identification, despite the challenges single sex toilets present to GNC people. I would prefer an end to cubicles and introduction of mandatory self contained individual washrooms for all. It's a pipe dream I know.

Sorry, came back on late

Actually, it’s been ok in the men’s toilets so far. Obviously I’ve been selective of when to go in etc but most men have just looked a little bemused at me coming out from the cubicle.

I won’t lie, there was some uncomfortable moments but it’s livable.

Patodp I was actually just thinking about that issue, women being kept at home because they had no access to public toilets.

I recently read this article from the Museum of London, ironically given the thread I'm posting it on, it's called Women's Right To Sit Comfortably.

The article is based on research on how women were still excluded from workplaces after the 1919 Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act was brought in, by businesses using the excuse that they couldn't employ women as they didn't have any toilet facilities for them.

And as you say, this was also evident in the way that women could really only stay at home or close to home, or were limited to visiting friends and family, but couldn't really occupy a public space because of a lack of public toilets for them to use.

I really think the law is a red herring here as laws are (literally) man made and do not serve women and girls well already.

Most women and girls don't report stuff.

When they do they're often not believed.

Much of what creepy men do is not illegal.

They target those that they think are less likely to report (schoolgirls in particular - girls and young women).

We want to stop things before they happen, after the event is too late (and most won't be reported anyway).

@SnibbleAgain
Years ago I read an excellent paper on the history, but could not find it for you.
I did find this. ask.metafilter.com/235727/Have-humans-always-sought-privacy-to-defecate

The laws around nudity in the UK are interesting - being naked in public in and of itself isn't illegal, there's a host of things around it though about intent and so forth, as I understand it.

here's a fairly old piece on the BBC about it

A man wanking at someone in a changing room is just as illegal as wanking at someone in a park.

A man taking his clothes off with no "intent" in either situaiton is not necessarily illegal.

The law around this has a lot of room for manoevre.

Then there is the large amount of behaviour that is extremely creepy and will make women and girls avoid the area where it happens, but is definitely not illegal (unless the police get a bit creative - we have some very broad laws for this purpose. I don't think they will with this due to hate crime laws , victims beign women and girls etc).

The point is. That the people in charge don't care, and women are expected to put up / shut up / stay at home if it doesn't work for them already.

" I would love if the msot pressing campaign for women's toilets was to take provision a step further and ensure that they really did meet women's needs in both the obvious (tampon machines) and more subtle (enough space for a sanitary bin next to the toilet without having to sit on it)"

But this is a fundamental.

They are talking about inclusion, for "all genders" as though women's toilets are already in a good situaiton re inclusion.

They aren't, over the last couple of decades hundreds of public toilets have been closed.

We have always put up with massive queues.

Our facilties are not fit for purpose as they are, really, let alone when you add all these extra people in.

But there ARE laws - indecent exposure, sexual exposure, public nuisance, breach of the peace could be used if a man if a man was causing problems in the ladies (but not actually assaulting them).... But if someone flashes my tween dd in a public place they can be arrested. With self id if they do it in a changing room then my tween dd gets to be 'educated' as transphobic?

Snibble - I would love if the msot pressing campaign for women's toilets was to take provision a step further and ensure that they really did meet women's needs in both the obvious (tampon machines) and more subtle (enough space for a sanitary bin next to the toilet without having to sit on it)

The problem is that we are in danger of losing what we already have, if self-ID goes ahead and organizations persist in "getting ahead of the law". We may as well be shitting in fields if what we currently have is largely removed from us.

The fact that the UN recognises that gender-based violence is very much an issue in respect of toilet facility provisions should be food for thought for anyone who is sitting on the fence, or doesn't understand what the fuss is about regarding toilets. The fact that they recognise the provision of safe, sex segregated toilets as critical to involving women and girls in public life, employment and education should be a wake up call to those who think that this is about nasty bigots being mean to poor Doris, who has been using the ladies for thirty years without causing a problem.

Sorry that's another sidetrack and google isn't telling me what I want to know easily

But then, women always worked, didn't we.

And I always think of buckets from blackadder

Didn't we used to have huge dresses and no underwear and just go wherever? Or have I made that up. And the streets were just full of human waste.

Note - not a historian! But I have a feeling that in the past >> further back, before public toilets existed at all, women took part in public life more in this country? We weren't ever in a situation like in modern Saudi say, not allowed out, I don't think? I really know very little about it, may have a google.

I still find it amazing that we first had female public toilets less than 100 years ago.

Women couldn't spend too long away from the home in case nature called, public Loos for men were understandably dangerous and unhygienic.

The first women's loos were burned down because men didn't like women being able to spend time away from home, and never have liked women having anything they couldn't have themselves, even including a room to pee in.

Good while it lasted...

Good resources Olenna although they seem to focus on access to facilities full stop, issues caused by people relieving themselves outdoors in terms of health etc.

I agree this is a very worthwhile cause in general but I'm not sure that these resources will help us. In the UK we have good sanitary facilities and most have homes with toilets, we won't risk being raped because we have to go and crap in a field, we'll just stay at home more / plan our journeys more which TBH many women already do as toilet faciltiies in the UK when out and about are already inadequate for many women's needs (pregnant women, elderly women, and they aren't the only ones with urgency / incontinence, plus I believe things like irritable bowel are more common in women).

I'm not sure that anyone really cares about that, is the bottom line. Public spaces re toilets in the UK are not really accessible for lots of women as it is. IYSWIM.

Maybe we should focus on that, anyway, as well.

19 November is "World Toilet Day". We should be working towards doing something important to mark this day, and highlight how we are in danger of slipping backwards in terms of provide safe, dignified sanitation for girls and women in the UK

This is officially in my diary.
Thanks!

A* for honesty to be fair.

TerranceandPhilip

Do you actually want to know Datun? Or is this just another chance for words to be put in my mouth and another attempt at a pile on?

Well I could say, with an element of truth, that I couldn't care less.

But, nonetheless, it's interesting to me where people draw the line in sex segregation. And why.

19 November is "World Toilet Day". We should be working towards doing something important to mark this day, and highlight how we are in danger of slipping backwards in terms of provide safe, dignified sanitation for girls and women in the UK

This from the UN is useful reading, as is this, and this

Do you actually want to know Datun? Or is this just another chance for words to be put in my mouth and another attempt at a pile on?

Yy, it is really important to be precise in quoting laws (and facts and statistics). As a pp said, we have facts, scientific and otherwise, on our side. If we start making stuff up, we start to lose the arguments.

And if so, do you agree that the current law is, or can easily be, exploited?
What law?

The law that says it's fine for men to enter women's toilets. In other words the lack of law to the contrary.

Toilets are not about the law. They are about customs and protocols.

And those customs and protocols are being ignored.

Therefore, women's protection is not being upheld.

The reason for that is the trans-ideology.

Giving the green light to demolishing customs and protocols.

Publicising this will affect public opinion, which will, in turn, reinforce customers and protocols. But, at the same, and in the meantime, women's vulnerability over this issue needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

The #metoo campaign has changed public opinion over sexual harrassment.

Sexual harassment was always illegal. The law was there. It was being ignored.

Now stupid men are taking to Twitter saying oh my God we can't even flirt with women.

Men who wilfully misunderstand the difference between sexual interest and sexual harassment are feeling the pinch.

Because of public opinion.

If the means by which women are protected are no longer adequate, then yes, the law needs to listen and provide for it.

You said you believe in sex segregation under certain circumstances.

For the sake of minimising argument, what are those circumstances?

The other point is that while we have a large number of pervy men in society, and a large number of men who just don't like women and enjoy upsetting / scaring them, that this number is large enough that pretty much all women have had multple instances usually starting from when they are very young, secondary school age usually,

Most men are fine.

This is also not about demonising men. Another accusation.

I agree with the posters who have said that we will be safer in the Gents if self ID comes in.

It is important not to cite imaginary laws when arguing against self ID.

Because it gives people the room to dismiss anything else said.

The argument that we have is good enough, the fact that 98% of sex offenders in prison are male, the fact that men are waaaaay more likely to behave in predatory, creepy, voyeuristic ways to women (and sometimes other men) than men are. The fact that looking at #metoo and similar, that pretty much all women have stories of men being creepy & worse, that this is a background to our lives, and so to simultaneously claim that opening all women only spaces up to men will be AOK is ridiculous.

That the laws that we have, have evolved over years from property laws, they are not great when it comes to interpersonal stuff. They were also written from a male perspective, so we have laws that cover the sort of violence that men do to other men, but the sort of things that men do to women that fundamentally impact on their security and safety and so on are often not illegal, or seen as trivial if they are. This is changing slowly but we still see things that are surprising (upskirting not illegal. teacher perving on girls he was teaching not illegal). There is a lot of catch up to do, and this means there is a BIG space where men can do stuff to us that is scary, threatening, unsettling, these are generally sexual in nature, but are not strictly speaking criminal. These are the things that the men will do in the changing rooms etc. And we won't be able to do anything about it.

This isn't trivial, unless you think #metoo is trivial.

So actually I'm going to say, which I didn't before, yes we should go on about toilets and changing rooms.

And about sports, prisons, crime stats, "firsts", quotas etc.

Ok, this thread is getting a bit odd...

AFAIK, there were a small number of women who claim that Harvey Weinstein raped and / or sexually assaulted them. There is a large number of women who claim that he behaved, or tried to behave, inappropriately towards them, including trying to wreck their career if they did not acquiese to his requests. There is a large number of men and women who acknowledge the Weinstein had a reputation in the business for being inappropriate

Asking someone to watch you shower is not illegal unless they are a minor and it is deemed to be sexual activity with a minor. It may be a breach of employment T&Cs. It is grim and abusive, as it is basically getting off on making another person uncomfortable. But not necessarily illegal.

Similarly, there are no laws preventing a man entering a women's toilets (or vice versa), but there are regulations governing the provision of sex segregated facilities in most of the places that people will use them outside private homes. And until recently there was strong social pressure that a man in a women's toilet or changing room would be required to leave - now we have Top Shop, M&S and others falling over themselves to accomodate not just TIM but men who "feel like a man" on a Monday but "feel like a woman" on a Tuesday