Uncomfortable about unisex toilets at work

Why should women have to make do with little baskets of sanpro? When the glaringly obvious solution is just to keep the women’s loos.

Exactly, especially when the employer is legally required to keep the women's loos unless they are designing them so that each loo is in a separate room (not cubicle). I've said it before but it's worth repeating.

However for stuff like school and workplaces I think it is less suitable.

Schools definitely, I'm not convinced about the workplace thing.

Works OK in ours, sinks & Sanitary Bins in the cubicles, full length doors. I'm not massively bothered if I bump into someone I recognise going in or out (and I will because there are only about 100 people on our floor).

I couldn't work in a place where I was surrounded by sexual predators waiting to pounce like so many of you are, so I must be lucky that I work with normal people.

Should we have single sex kitchen areas too? They're small, confined, out of the way - those predators could be waiting for you to bend over by the fridge.....

@ratrolypoly

Sometimes something is so spectacularly moronic, it's worth the extra effort.

Why should women have to make do with little baskets of sanpro? When the glaringly obvious solution is just to keep the women’s loos.

So much this

Trousersdontmakemeaman you actually @mentioned me to say that?

Generally I don't mind the idea if it's applies to cafes etcetera. I've been in unisex cafe loos and it makes more sense in some ways so then your not waiting around for the girls loo to be free if someone says in it for example, or then being forced to use the bloody stinking dirty male loo if the girl one is taking ages

However for stuff like school and workplaces I think it is less suitable. The boys for example could make fun of the girls if they see some sort of period evidence. As all the people know each other rather than being strangers like in a cafe, and think it could create awkwardness for example if one of the girls knows one of the boys fancies them that would make me feel awkward in a unisex loo situation.

Why should women have to make do with little baskets of sanpro? When the glaringly obvious solution is just to keep the women’s loos.

No one wants unisex bogs. Men don’t, women don’t. A tiny proportion of often aggressive activists do and they’re getting their way but it’s ok because there maybof may not be some sanpro and wet wipes in a basket...

@ratrolypoly

So OP, I've been thinking; if this goes ahead and these end up being your loos - and they don't have basins in the cubicles - you could perhaps lobby HR to provide little baskets full of sanpro in each cubicle and a packet of baby wipes for bloodied hand cleaning. If there is not shelf you can get little baskets that sucker to the walls. To be honest, this is the kind of guerrilla action I would take anyway without involving HR, but then insist they keep it up once initiated!

HR have fuck all to do with toilets. HR is not a handy team of women sitting about waiting for you to pop by with a shopping list of toiletry supplies you fancy having. If you came into my office insisting I had to do this for you, I would be telling you to go take a running jump. And then we would be laughing about your stupidity for months.

So if your period behaviour makes periods more shameful and difficult for all women, it is not a feminist behaviour and it wouldn't be supported by a pure radfem.

Bollocks. Again, woman shaming. Again, blame all on women. Again, minimising the argument. It’s all your fault women. Stop behaving like you’re behaving and start serving men. And shut up about your periods.

Illustrious: no. You are wrong. Where women have toilets and facilities that are sex specific, they are less likely to be assaulted. This is according to Amnesty and the UN. I don't usually resort to appeals to authority, but circumstances (up to and including wilful blindness) require it.

As for Rat - haven't you bowed out of this thread already? Yeah, stick to that. Your value-adding is less than zero. Basically, you keep shifting goalposts, and I see it. No point in calling you out on any POV, you'll just 're-work it' in the next post. Shall I call you Ruby perhaps? The style is identical

I don't know who Ruby is, but my recollection is that Rat asked us to 'enjoy our circle jerk' when they exited - a phrase that I found both odd and offensive considering the nature of this thread and board. Rat seems a bit confused about sex, gender and bodies in general I think.

One has to consider what impact one's choice has on women as a class (and that in its extreme is pure radical feminism). So if your period behaviour makes periods more shameful and difficult for all women, it is not a feminist behaviour and it wouldn't be supported by a pure radfem.

This is a. a rather ugly attempt to twist what women in this thread have been saying and b. an indication that you don't understand radical feminism. But we already knew that.

It's a male dominance display. We shouldn't have to deal with it when we are vulnerable and want privacy.

Surely if a man wants to assault a woman in a toilet, he's going to follow her in & assault her whether it's a women specific toilet or a gender neutral one?

That's not really how it works, for two reasons.

Firstly we don't remove safeguarding on the assumption that a predator will manage to circumvent it.

And secondly, men have to do very little to make women feel intimidated and uncomfortable.

The smug flick of an eye, a lingering stare, a smirk. Certainly nothing illegal, or anything you could complain about. But something that is evidently lascivious, or designed to intimidate. Women experience it all the time.

It's particularly effective when the perpetrator knows there is nothing the woman can do about it.

bd67th

But the toilet in that article wasn't gender neutral.

Surely if a man wants to assault a woman in a toilet, he's going to follow her in & assault her whether it's a women specific toilet or a gender neutral one?

He's already decided he's going to do it, knows he's breaking the law & won't be discouraged by the stick figure on the door...

Face it: if trans people wanted a trans-specific third space they would get it with a snap of the fingers. They don't want that. TW aren't unsafe in the men's. They just want into women's spaces.

This!

We had a unisex toilet at my work. Absolutely hated it.

@infertlilitybitch You're not irrational for fearing sexual assault or being pushed into a cubicle. newyork.cbslocal.com/video/3849466-police-seek-suspects-in-park-bathroom-sexual-assault/

Basically, you keep shifting goalposts, and I see it. No point in calling you out on any POV, you'll just 're-work it' in the next post.

Weirdest criticism ever, that I might actually be taking something from the discussion and be open to changing my views So I post some stuff, come back the next day and say "sorry, I think I went a bit far" and in some strange land that's a bad thing?

Okay LaSqrrl, if you think so. You can "see it" all you like because it's a quality I'm rather glad I possess. And I have no idea who Ruby is.

Women are less likely to be sexually assaulted if toilets are sex specific.

Personally I'd be happy with 1 toilet rooms with lockable doors.

I'm not a fan of having anyone (male or female) in the cubicle next door when I'm having a loud/explosive dump.

Whether it's the annoying bloke from sales or the annoying woman from sales is irrelevant - I'd still rather they weren't there.

Face it: if trans people wanted a trans-specific third space they would get it with a snap of the fingers. They don't want that. TW aren't unsafe in the men's. They just want into women's spaces.

Pretty sure most men don't want to share their toilets with women either.

Some men wash their hands before going to the loo BTW, so a woman doing it is unlikely to be remarked upon.

Some of the arguments are scraping the barrel a bit- "I don't want a man entering a cubicle straight after me" for one. I'm not fond of sitting on a pre-warmed seat myself, but I do it. Unless you have the perception that they don't think you shit?

No, it's not a twisting. Women are saying they want privacy and you are calling them prudes.

Or perhaps you think privacy consists of little more than not being actually visible while actually sitting on pan?

Bowl:
The appeals to ‘not be prudish about periods’ are another way of shutting down women’s concerns. It places the blame for not acquiescing immediately onto the women - look we are all just silly embarrassed prudes, not like these modern enlightened people! But the onus isn’t on us to do that - the onus is on those forcing to change to make their case. And yet concerns over safety are not addressed. And it should be enough for us to say ‘no. I do not want this.’ As always, a woman’s ‘no’ means nothing.

Absolutely, they have not proven their case for 'the change'. Not at all, their arguments seem to consist of 'stfu you prude' (coming from TRAs and the anti-feminists here).

As for Rat - haven't you bowed out of this thread already? Yeah, stick to that. Your value-adding is less than zero. Basically, you keep shifting goalposts, and I see it. No point in calling you out on any POV, you'll just 're-work it' in the next post. Shall I call you Ruby perhaps? The style is identical.